The animal importation regulations (contained in 9 CFR part 93 and referred to below as the regulations), among other things, prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals, including horses, into the United States to protect U.S. livestock from communicable diseases. In § 93.301, paragraph (c)(1) prohibits the importation of horses into the United States from certain regions where contagious equine metritis (CEM) exists. Paragraph (c)(2) lists categories of horses that are excepted from this prohibition, including, in § 93.301(c)(2)(vi), horses over 731 days of age imported for permanent entry if the horses meet the requirements of § 93.301(e).

One of the requirements in § 93.301(e) is that mares and stallions over 731 days old imported for permanent entry from regions where CEM exists must be consigned to States listed in § 93.301(h)(6), for stallions, or in § 93.301(h)(7), for mares. The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has approved these States to receive stallions or mares over 731 days of age from regions where CEM exists because each State has entered into a written agreement with the Administrator to enforce State laws and regulations to control CEM, and each State has agreed to quarantine, test, and treat mares and stallions over 731 days of age from a region where CEM exists in accordance with § 93.301(e).

Oregon has entered into a written agreement with the Administrator of APHIS and has agreed to comply with all of the requirements in § 93.301(e) for importing mares and stallions over 731 days old from regions where CEM exists. Therefore, this direct final rule will add Oregon to the lists of States in § 93.301(h)(6) and (h)(7) approved to receive certain stallions and mares imported into the United States from regions where CEM exists.

We are publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse public comments. This rule will be effective, as published in this document, February 16, 2001 unless we receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments by January 17, 2001.

Adverse comments are comments that suggest the rule should not be adopted or that suggest the rule should be changed.

If we receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing this rule before the effective date. We will then publish a proposed rule for public comment.

As discussed above, if we receive no written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments within 30 days of publication of this direct final rule, this direct final rule will become effective 60 days following its publication. We will publish a notice in the Federal Register before the effective date of this direct final rule, confirming that it is effective on the date indicated in this document.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.

The share of purebred breeding horse imports coming from CEM-affected regions is a relatively small fraction of the total number of horses imported, ranging between 5 and 10 percent between 1996 and 1999 (table 1). However, horses supplied by CEM-affected countries are generally highly valued. In 1999, for example, the average value of a purebred breeding horse imported from a CEM-affected region was $52,300, whereas the average value of a purebred breeding horse imported from anywhere in the world (i.e., from both CEM-affected and CEM-free regions) was $11,700.

During these same 4 years, the United States imported 28,374 horses classified as “except purebred breeding” from CEM-affected regions (table 2). While it is possible that some of these horses from CEM-affected regions may be for breeding, it is more likely that they are imported for racing or exhibition. 1 During 1996-1999, about one of every five “except purebred breeding” horses imported into the United States came from CEM-affected countries. Their combined annual value comprised, on average, 60 percent of the value of all “except purebred breeding” horse imports.

To minimize the risk of the CEM organism entering the United States, restrictions are applied to stallions and mares imported from CEM-affected regions, including health certification and preembarkation and postentry testing and treatment. During 1996 through 1999, 21,882 cultures were tested at approved laboratories for CEM and a similar CEM-like organism. Forty of the cultures tested positive, of which at least one-third to one-half were infections by the CEM-like organism (several of domestic origin). Thus, the likelihood of a specimen testing CEM-positive during this period was roughly about 0.1 percent.

As this small percentage indicates, breeding horses imported from CEM-affected regions rarely test positive for CEM. When they do, they are treated and remain in isolation until examined and subsequent cultures test negative. Nevertheless, the potential consequences of the establishment of CEM in the United States make the risk posed by this disease a serious concern. Besides the health costs associated with infected horses, establishment of CEM would have a disruptive impact on U.S. horse exports, especially on high-value breeding horses. At a minimum, more extensive testing and extended quarantining would be required of exporters. The addition of Oregon to the list of approved States is explicit recognition of the capability of Oregon facilities to carry out postentry testing and treatment requirements.

Importers of breeding horses in Oregon—owners of horse farms and race horses—are the entities most likely to be affected by this rule. This rule will enable importers in Oregon to import stallions and mares directly from CEM-affected regions, whereas at present, those animals must first be imported into another approved State, the closest of which is California, and undergo postentry testing and treatment before being transported to Oregon.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the impacts of their rules on small entities. Whether affected entities may be considered small depends on their annual gross receipts. Annual receipts of $500,000 or less is the small entity criterion set by the Small Business Administration for establishments primarily engaged in raising horses and other equines (NAICS code 112920). For operations owning race horses (NAICS code 711219), the small entity criterion is annual gross receipts of $5 million or less.

Most horse owners in Oregon will be unaffected by this rule, since they do not purchase horses imported from CEM-affected countries. Of those firms that will be affected, it is reasonable to assume that at least some may be small entities. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, a total of 13,952 horses were sold by 2,579 farms in Oregon in 1997, implying an average income per farm from horse sales of $5,410. However, given the generally higher value of breeding horses from CEM-affected countries, larger operations will be the more likely affected entities.

The impact for affected Oregon establishments will be positive in terms of postentry transport cost savings; the horses will be able to be imported directly into Oregon rather than through California or other approved States. However, the savings is not expected to be large when compared to the value of the imported horses, and a substantial number of small entities are not expected to be significantly affected.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), the FDIC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) provided extensive Y2K-readiness guidance to the banking industry. Despite best efforts in preparing for Y2K, there remained the possibility that some institutions would not be Y2K ready and might have to be closed. The FDIC planned for a broad range of contingencies and on June 9, 1999, published an interim final rule to ensure that, if an affected institution experienced a Y2K problem and was closed, the FDIC would be able to make federally insured deposits available to depositors expeditiously. The rule also facilitated the quick acquisition or transfer of servicing of assets to help maintain public confidence in, and minimize any related disruption to, the financial system.

The interim final rule, 12 CFR 331, became effective on July 9, 1999, including the provision at 12 CFR 331.6 that the ALBP procedures contained in the rule would not be needed after June 30, 2000. As anticipated, the procedures are no longer needed. Therefore, with this action, the FDIC is rescinding the rule.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1818 (a) and (b) and 12 U.S.C. 1819(a) (Seventh and Tenth), 12 CFR Part 331 is removed and reserved.

OTS is amending its regulations to incorporate a number of technical and conforming amendments. These changes are outlined below:

OTS is updating its table displaying the OMB control numbers assigned to various OTS regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act. See 12 CFR 506.1(b). OTS is revising the table to add and correct the references to the control numbers.

OTS is making two technical amendments to the Uniform Rules of Practice and Procedure. First, OTS is amending § 509.19(c) to conform its default provisions to the rules of the other banking agencies. Under the current OTS rule, if a respondent fails to file a timely answer to a notice of charges in an administrative proceeding, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), upon motion of Enforcement Counsel, “shall . . . file a recommended decision with the Director containing the findings and the relief sought in the complaint.” The other banking agencies' rules are similar, but require the ALJ to make the additional determination that “no good cause exists for a respondent's failure to file a timely answer.” 1 The ALJs in OTS administrative proceedings have generally given the respondents an opportunity to explain a failure to respond through this good cause process. OTS believes that this technical amendment is necessary to update the rule to reflect existing practices, to provide greater consistency with the other federal banking agencies, and to be more explicit in the requirements of the administrative law judge before recommending a decision based on a default.

OTS is also correcting a typographical error in § 509.31, which governs scheduling and prehearing conferences. The rule currently refers to the ALJ's authority to direct counsel to the parties to meet to address “matters of which office notice may be taken (emphasis added).” This reference is replaced with term “official notice.”

Finally, OTS is revising the lending and investment powers chart at § 560.30 to provide corrected statutory citations. The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-208, removed section 5(c)(3)(A) of the Home Owners' Loan Act and redesignated sections 5(c)(3)(B) through (D) as 5(c)(3)(A) through (C). OTS has made corresponding changes to the powers chart.

The OTS has found good cause to dispense with both prior notice and comment on this final rule and a 30-day delay of its effective date mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act. 2 OTS believes that it is contrary to public interest to delay the effective date of the rule, as it corrects and clarifies provisions that have caused confusion. Because the amendments in the rule are not substantive, making them effective immediately will not detrimentally affect savings associations.

In addition, this document is exempt from the requirement found in section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 3  that regulations must not take effect before the first day of the quarter following publication, as it imposes no new requirements.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 4 it is certified that this technical corrections regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

OTS has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

OTS has determined that the requirements of this final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, a budgetary impact statement is not required under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

What prior AD action did FAA take on this subject? In 1980, FAA issued AD 80-26-05, Amendment 39-3994, in order to detect and correct cracked main landing gear (MLG) inboard door hinge assemblies on certain Piper PA-31 series airplanes. AD 80-26-05 currently requires you to repetitively inspect the MLG inboard door hinges and attachment angles for cracks; and requires you to replace any cracked MLG inboard door hinge or attachment angle.

On December 1, 1995, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Piper PA-31 series airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62774), and proposed to supersede AD 80-26-05, Amendment 39-3994. The NPRM proposed to:

Accomplishment of the proposed inspections would have been required in accordance with Piper Service Bulletin (SB) No. 682, dated July 24, 1980.

This NPRM was consistent with FAA's aging commuter-class aircraft policy, which briefly states that, when a modification exists that could eliminate or reduce the number of required critical inspections, the modification should be incorporated. This policy is based on FAA's determination that reliance on critical repetitive inspections on aging commuter-class airplanes carries an unnecessary safety risk when a design change exists that could eliminate or, in certain instances, reduce the number of those critical inspections. The alternative to installing the improved design hinge assemblies on the affected airplanes would be to rely on the repetitive inspections required by AD 80-26-05 to detect cracks in these areas.

Was the public invited to comment on the NPRM? The FAA invited interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration was given to the one comment received.

What issue did this comment address? The comment received on the NPRM contained information that the improved design MLG inboard door hinge assemblies, P/N 47529-32, are also susceptible to fatigue cracking, and that installing this assembly should not eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections currently required by AD 80-26-05. The commenter stated that its airplane fleet has experienced three failures and three incidents related to fatigue cracking of the P/N 47529-32 hinge assemblies.

What action did FAA take? We conducted a review of the manufacturer's service history and service difficulty reports in FAA's database associated with the P/N 47529-32 MLG inboard door hinge assembly. Based on a review of this information, including the information received from the commenter, we determined that more information and analysis were needed before mandating MLG inboard door hinge assembly replacements through an AD.

We then issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on February 11, 1997. The ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 19, 1997 (62 FR 7375). The purpose of the ANPRM was to encourage interested persons to provide information that describes what they consider the best action (if any) for FAA to take regarding the P/N 47529-32 MLG inboard door hinge assembly issue. The FAA also withdrew the NPRM. We received no information or comments regarding the ANPRM.

We then re-evaluated the information in our service difficulty database. The database, at that time, contained 10 reports of failure or cracks found in the MLG inboard door hinge assembly on the affected airplanes. The commenter to the original NPRM had submitted six of these reports. Three of these six incident reports were specifically attributed to the original MLG inboard door hinge assemblies and three to the improved design MLG inboard door hinge assemblies. The four reports that others submitted do not specifically identify whether the original MLG inboard door hinge assemblies were installed or the improved design assemblies were installed. Since the incidents occurred on high service time airplanes and since there is no AD action mandating the installation of the improved-design MLG inboard door hinge assemblies, we presumed that the original hinge assemblies were installed.

The FAA then reviewed the three incident reports on the improved design MLG inboard door hinge assemblies and, along with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), performed extensive testing and analysis of the improved design MLG inboard door hinge assemblies. Based on this review, testing, and analysis, we determined that:

On October 14, 1997, FAA issued an NPRM to address these issues. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54595).

What has happened to justify this AD action? Since issuance of the NPRM, we have received additional reports of cracks in the MLG inboard door hinge assemblies. The reports reference incidents on both the original design assemblies and the improved design hinges. As of the issue date of this document, we have reports of the following:

We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Piper PA-31 series airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a supplemental NPRM on July 21, 2000 (65 FR 45323). The supplemental NPRM proposed to supersede AD 80-26-05, Amendment 39-3994, with a new AD that proposed to require:

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? These actions are necessary to detect and correct cracked MLG inboard door hinge assemblies. These cracked door hinge assemblies could result in the MLG becoming jammed with consequent loss of control of the airplane during landing operations.

Was the public invited to comment? The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment:

What is the commenter's concern? The commenter states that the NPRM incorrectly identifies the Piper P/N 47529-32 MLG door hinge assemblies as parts made of steel. The commenter explains that these assemblies are made of aluminum.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We concur that the Piper P/N 47529-32 MLG door hinge assemblies are made of aluminum. We inadvertently referenced these parts as steel parts in the supplemental NPRM.

We are changing the final rule AD accordingly.

What is the commenter's concern? The commenter expresses doubt that the Piper P/N 47529-32 MLG door hinge assemblies can go as long as 2,000-hour TIS intervals between inspections before cracking. The commenter recommends 100-hour TIS interval inspections for these assemblies.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We determined that the 2,000-hour TIS interval was an adequate compliance time for these parts based on our conservative estimate of all quantitative information available. The service reports indicate failures on airplanes ranging from a low of 3,615 total hours TIS to a high of 14,852 total hours TIS.

We are not changing the final rule AD as a result of this comment.

What is the commenter's concern? The commenter states that the cost impact presented in the supplemental NPRM is incorrect because:

What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur with changing the cost to accomplish the inspection. While removing the hinges from the airplane to accomplish the inspection is an option, FAA has determined that you can adequately accomplish the inspections without removing the hinges.

After checking with the manufacturer, we concur that the cost for the replacement MLG door hinge assemblies is approximately $465.

We are changing the Cost Impact section of this document accordingly.

What is the commenter's concern? The commenter states that the AD should follow Piper Service Bulletin No. 682 and not require inspections on airplanes that have MLG door hinge assemblies that are made of steel. The commenter also requests that FAA include a list of the two outside sources that currently provide assemblies made of steel.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We concur that the AD should not apply to MLG door hinge assemblies that are made of steel and we are changing the final rule accordingly.

However, FAA is not including the list of those outside sources that currently provide assemblies made of steel. If we did include this list, out of fairness, we would feel obligated to revise the AD anytime an outside source developed and received approval for installation of MLG door hinge assemblies made of steel on the affected airplanes.

A list of outside vendors with FAA-approved assemblies made of steel is always available from the FAA address included in the AD.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? We carefully reviewed all available information related to the subject presented above and determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for the changes discussed above and editorial corrections. These changes and corrections provide the intent that was proposed in the supplemental NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition and do not impose any additional burden than what was intended in the supplemental NPRM.

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 2,344 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the initial inspection:

Does this AD impact various entities? The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

What prior AD action did FAA take on this subject? A review of the service history of ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes that incorporate wood wing spars caused FAA to initiate AD rulemaking action. In-flight wing structural failures on ACAC Model 8GCBC airplanes and several incidents and accidents on other affected airplane models where damage was found on the front and rear wood spars prompted this review. Those rulemaking actions are:

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? Continued operation with such cracks and damage could progress to in-flight structural failure of the wing with consequent loss of the airplane.

Did we receive comments on the NPRM (Docket No. 97-CE-79-AD)? The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the rulemaking aspects of this subject. We received numerous comments on the NPRM (Docket No. 97-CE-79-AD). Many of these comments proposed that we combine the actions of the NPRM and AD 98-05-04 into one AD that would affect all ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes and incorporate recommended alternative methods for complying with the actions. Based on these comments, FAA:

Accomplishment of the proposed inspection as specified in the NPRM would be required in accordance with ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998.

Was the public invited to comment on the NPRM? The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. At the request of several commenters, FAA reopened the comment period for the NPRM on July 29, 1999. This action was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 1999 (64 FR 42297). A summary of the comments on both the original NPRM and the reopening of the comment period follow, along with FAA's responses.

What is the commenters' concern? Several commenters request an extension to the comment period in order to have more time to provide information on the proposed rule.

What is FAA's response to the concern? As discussed previously, FAA reopened the comment period to give the public an additional 30 days to respond.

We are not changing the final rule as a result of these comments.

What is the commenters' concern? Numerous commenters agree with the AD pertaining to ACAC airplane models. However, the commenters state that certain lightweight 7 and 11 series airplanes with low horsepower engines should only be subject to a one-time spar inspection because they are not certificated for aerobatic flight and are not subjected to the same operations as the heavier high horsepower airplanes.

What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA has determined that wing damage incidents are the major cause of compression cracks and other spar damage in low horsepower and lightweight airplanes. Therefore, a one-time inspection is acceptable for ACAC Models 7AC, 7ACA, S7AC, 7BCM (L-16A), 7CCM (L-16BA), S7CCM, 7DC, S7DC, 7EC, S7EC, 7FC, 7JC, 11AC, S11AC, 11BC, S11BC, 11CC, and S11CC airplanes. These airplanes have engines that are 90 horsepower and lower (includes 60- to 90-horsepower engines). You must repetitively inspect airplanes that are modified with engines greater than 90 horsepower.

You must also accomplish the inspection any time one of the affected airplanes is involved in any accident or incident where the wing is involved.

We are changing the final rule AD to only require an initial inspection on certain ACAC 7 and 11 series airplanes, with any subsequent inspections required for any affected airplane involved in an incident/accident (that happens after the effective date of this AD) where wing damage occurs ( e.g., surface deformations such as abrasions, gouges, scratches, or dents, etc.).

What is the commenters' concern? Numerous commenters request that FAA remove lightweight and low horsepower airplanes from the Applicability of the AD. The commenters state that these airplanes are not certificated for aerobatic operation and, therefore, do not receive the stress levels in the spar that caused the need for this AD.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur that these lightweight and low horsepower airplanes should be removed from the AD. We have received compression crack and spar damage reports on lightweight and low horsepower airplane models ( i.e., Model 7AC). The following is a synopsis from a service difficulty report (SDR) for a Model 7AC airplane:

This information caused us to propose (in the NPRM) a requirement for submitting all findings of airplane wing damage. You can accomplish this by describing the damage in a Malfunction or Defect Report (M or D), FAA Form 8010-4, and sending a copy of the report to the Chicago Aircraft Certification Office. (You may submit M or D reports electronically through the FAA AFS-600 web page at http://www.mmac.jccbi.gov/afs/afs600. Because you will lose access to the report once you electronically submit it, we recommend that you print two copies prior to submitting the report and forward one to the Chicago ACO and keep the other for your records). We will evaluate the data as it is received and initiate further rulemaking action, if necessary.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments. However, as discussed in the previous comment, the AD will only require an initial inspection on the airplanes equipped with low horsepower engines. Subsequent inspections are required for any affected airplane involved in an incident/accident (that happens after the effective date of this AD) where wing damage occurs ( e.g., surface deformations such as abrasions, gouges, scratches, or dents, etc.).

What is the commenters' concern? Two commenters state that spar damage is a direct result of aerobatic flight. The commenters suggest that FAA change the proposal to affect only aircraft certificated for aerobatic activity.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur. Reports indicate that spar damage occurs on low horsepower airplane models that are not certificated for aerobatic flight. We have determined that wing damage incidents are the primary cause of compression cracks on the lower horsepower airplanes.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenter's concern? One commenter requests that FAA exclude airplanes from the Applicability of the AD if any wing with a compression crack can still pass testing to 150-percent of design limit load.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur. Compression cracked test spar specimens may not represent wood spars where compression cracks occur randomly along the spar length. The only assurance that the specimen was in a “Pass” condition was if the specimen's compression crack was identical to that of a failed spar. All compression cracks are not identical. Even slight compression cracks may seriously reduce the strength of the material. The approved type design of the affected airplanes does not allow cracked spars.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenters' concern? Several commenters state that, if you accomplish a proper annual inspection, then there is no need for this AD. These commenters state that the required maintenance programs provide the procedures to detect spar damage. These commenters also state that part 43 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 43) requires inspection of the wing spars.

What is FAA's response to the concerns? We concur that maintenance manuals for the ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes and part 43 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 43) specify inspecting the wing spars for cracks during annual and 100-hour inspections, particularly at the butt ends and strut attach points. However, this existing guidance does not provide instructions for sufficiently accessing the spar or identifying damage. For example, compression cracks appear as barely visible, minute, and jagged series of lines that run across the grain on the top or bottom of the spar. If not viewed with detailed instructions and the proper equipment, you could overlook them. SDR's submitted since the issuance of AD 98-05-04 have confirmed the importance of inspecting the wing spars in accordance with ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998. We can only require compliance with service information through AD action.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenters' concern? Two commenters request that FAA exempt from the AD airplanes where the wing spars were recently inspected and found to be free of damage or where the spars were replaced.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur. To adequately inspect the wing spars for cracks and compression cracks, you must utilize the detailed inspection procedures in ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998 (or procedures approved by FAA). Information available to FAA reveals that mechanics have overlooked compression cracks when not following these procedures.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments

What is the commenters' concerns? Several commenters request that FAA remove from this AD the option of installing inspection covers on the top surface of the wings of the ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes. Specific concerns are as follows:

1. Top wing inspection covers could leak, cause water damage to the spar, and result in structural degradation of the wing;

2. Top wing inspection covers could come off during flight due to the negative pressure on the top surface, and result in wing damage; and

3. Top wing inspection covers will cause aerodynamic and performance concerns.

What is FAA's response to the concerns? We do not concur with removing the option of installing top inspection covers from the AD. ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, allows the mechanic to utilize a variety of procedures and techniques (including the installation of top inspection covers) to perform a thorough inspection depending on his/her experience, equipment, and the aircraft configuration without mandating a specific number, type, or location of inspection holes/covers. The service information only specifies the installation of additional FAA-approved holes/covers as needed to accomplish a thorough spar inspection. The mechanic performing the inspection is in the best position to determine the minimum number, type, and location of inspection holes/covers needed to accomplish a thorough spar inspection. We also do not concur that the installation of these covers will cause other safety concerns. Our response to each specific concern is as follows:

1. Water damage to the spar: The manufacturer designed and tested an FAA-approved watertight seal for the as-needed wing inspection cover installation. This minimizes the potential for water damage.

2. Wing damage: The manufacturer designed the covers specifically to not cause damage to the reinforced cutout if the eight screws that attach the covers are inadvertently left off or not tightened, and the covers come off the airplane. Testing indicates that the covers easily flip backward off the wing if all screws are omitted.

3. Aerodynamic and performance concerns: FAA flight test personnel have evaluated these as-needed top inspection covers. As of the issuance of this document, we have not received any reports of decreased performance or service difficulty reports concerning any of the over 200 sets (400 inspection covers) that have already been delivered to the field.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenter's concerns? One commenter requests that we not require the mechanics to inspect with a high intensity light source and mirrors. The commenter states that compression cracks are extremely difficult to detect and are easily overlooked.

The commenter also states that the initial inspection method described in ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, is inadequate and the best way to detect compression cracks is by removing a section of the leading edge and looking directly at the top of the spar. This commenter suggests requiring the installation of FAA-approved inspection holes/covers that are better situated on top of the wing than the holes/covers referenced in ACAC Service Letter 417, Revision C, dated May 6, 1998.

What is FAA's response to the concern? ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, allows the mechanic to utilize a variety of procedures and techniques to perform a thorough inspection depending on his/her experience, equipment, and the aircraft configuration without mandating a specific number, type and/or location of inspection holes/covers. The service information only specifies the installation of additional FAA-approved holes/covers as needed to accomplish a thorough spar inspection. The mechanic performing the inspection is in the best position to determine the type, number, and location of inspection holes/covers needed to accomplish a thorough spar inspection.

Mechanics utilizing ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, have detected compression cracks on the wing spars that were not detected during previous annual inspections. We have determined that the procedures in the service letter, as proposed in the NPRM, provide sufficient information to detect compression cracks in the wing spars of ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenter's concern? One commenter believes that the cost of installing inspection covers will be significantly greater than we estimated in the NPRM. We infer that the commenter is referring to the additional costs associated with cosmetic paint refinishing costs after the installation of any needed inspection holes/covers.

What is FAA's response to the concern? The cost impact of this AD reflects 11 as-needed inspection holes installed in the bottom of each wing (a total of 22) and 2 as-needed inspection holes/covers installed in the top of each wing. The decision on the number and location of any as-needed inspection holes/covers is at the discretion of the inspector in order to adequately inspect the entire surface of both wing spars.

Cosmetic considerations are not reflected. If you utilize the alternative inspection method referenced in ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, the number of as-needed inspection holes/covers would be reduced. This would further reduce the cost impact of this AD.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenters' concerns? Five commenters state that compression cracks are extremely difficult to detect and are easily overlooked. Because of this, the commenters believe that FAA should:

What is FAA's response to the concerns? We concur that the compression cracks are difficult to detect and mechanics could easily overlook them if they are not experienced in detecting damage specific to wood structure. ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, contains a detailed description of compression cracks. This service letter also:

Mechanics have detected compression cracks in aircraft while utilizing ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998. We have determined that the procedures in the service letter, as proposed in the NPRM, provide sufficient information to detect compression cracks in the wing spars of ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenters' concern? Two commenters suggest that FAA narrow the areas of inspection for compression cracks. These commenters state that this will not affect the inspection results.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur. The Inspection: (Bottom/Top) section of ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, contains the following:

Compression cracks have been detected in locations other than the strut attachment area. The forward or aft face of the spar needs to be inspected for indication of damage. This position has also been supported by an SDR on an ACAC Model 7GCBC airplane on the aft spar. This SDR contains the following information:

We also have received photos of a badly cracked front spar from an ACAC Model 7GCAA airplane. This compression crack occurred just outboard of the first rib outboard and adjacent to the fuel tank bay and it extended 2/3 upward from the bottom of the spar. The report specifies that the aircraft had just over 500 hours time-in-service (TIS).

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenter's concern? One commenter believes improper rigging of the aircraft wings causes many compression cracks. This commenter requests additional service information.

What is FAA's response to the concern? While FAA agrees that improper rigging could lead to compression cracks, all information available to us indicates the problem does not result from improper rigging alone. The reporting requirement in the AD will allow us to continue to collect data and investigate the cause of compression cracks and other reported damage. We may initiate further rulemaking action on this subject based on the information received.

We are always open for groups such as the manufacturer and type clubs to work together to come up with valuable information, such as standardized rigging criteria and procedures.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenters' concern? Two commenters suggest that the phrase “to prevent possible compression cracks and other * * *” that is included in the NPRM be changed to read “to detect possible compression cracks and other * * *”

What is FAA's response to the concern? We concur that the word detect should be added. We are changing this part of the final rule AD to read:

What is the commenter's concern? One commenter states that use of carbon tetrachloride would improve the compression crack inspection method.

What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA agrees that the use of carbon tetrachloride may enhance the inspection of unvarnished wood and may have limited benefit if used on varnished spars. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified carbon tetrachloride as a carcinogen. Health concerns and the availability of this substance prevent us from requiring its use through this AD.

If desired, the application of any commercially-available “light weight” (not thick or viscous) wood stain instead of carbon tetrachloride may enhance the inspection process.

We obtained this information from the Forest Products Laboratory, which is a unit of the research organization of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

We have determined that the application of a high intensity light source directly on the varnished surface, as specified in Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, adequately highlights compression cracks.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenters' concern? Two commenters suggest that FAA only require inspection during fabric recovering. These commenters state that this should be adequate to detect wing spar damage.

What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA does not concur. Information tells us differently. For example, Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-1B, paragraph 2.2.a., contains the following:

Therefore, the special instructions contained in ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998, are required to identify certain types of damage that may occur in the span of 10, 20, or more years of service. Additionally, the above-referenced AC also specifies “Therefore, it is very important to * * * provide adequate inspection access to all areas of (man-made) fabric covered components * * *”

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What is the commenter's concern? One commenter states that he was taught to always “jack the wings back and forth” during the preflight inspection. The commenter recommends we consider adding this preflight technique to the AD. Since the commenter did not elaborate on the reason for this technique, we infer that the commenter believes this technique will help to audibly detect wing spar damage.

What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA does not concur. This technique may not detect most types of damage and may actually initiate damage if performed too aggressively.

We are not changing the AD based on these comments.

What have we decided? After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, including the above-referenced comments, FAA has determined that:

What does this AD require? This AD retains the inspection and repair or replacement requirements of AD 98-05-04 for the ACAC Model 8GCBC airplanes; extends all these actions to all ACAC 7, 8, and 11 series airplanes, except the inspections are not repetitive for certain 7 and 11 series airplanes; requires that all damage be reported to FAA; and incorporates alternative methods of accomplishing certain actions.

Why is the compliance time in calendar time instead of hours time-in-service? The compliance time of this AD is presented in calendar time and TIS. We are utilizing repetitive inspection compliance times that will coincide with the owner's/operator's annual inspection program. This should have the least impact upon operators because the costs of having the airplane out of service can be absorbed with regularly scheduled down-time.

To assure that compression cracks do not go undetected in the wood spars of the affected airplanes, we are using the following compliance times:

1. The initial inspection at the first annual inspection that occurs 30 calendar days or more after the effective date of the AD or within 13 calendar months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later; and

2. The repetitive inspections (for those airplanes affected) thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 calendar months or 500 hours TIS, whichever occurs first.

How did we determine the cost impact of this AD? The following cost analysis is based on the presumption that 26 as-needed inspection holes/covers (11 per wing on the bottom surface and 2 per wing on the top surface) will be installed on each affected airplane, in order to complete a thorough inspection in accordance with ACAC Service Letter 406, Revision A, dated May 6, 1998. All of these inspection holes/covers may not be needed, which will reduce the cost impact upon U.S. operators of the affected airplanes.

How many airplanes are impacted by this AD? The FAA estimates that 6,701 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

What is the cost impact of the initial inspection on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate that it will take approximately 6 workhours (Installations: 5 workhours; Initial Inspection: 1 workhour) per airplane to accomplish this action, and that the average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost approximately $292 per airplane, provided that each airplane will have 11 as-needed standard inspection holes/covers per wing bottom surface and 2 as-needed inspection holes/covers per wing top surface (total of 26 new covers per airplane) installed. If the airplane needs more inspection covers installed ( e.g., a result of previous non-factory wing recover work), the cost could be slightly higher. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,369,052, or $652 per airplane.

What about the cost of repetitive inspections and possible repairs and replacements? These cost figures are based on the presumption that no affected Model 8GCBC airplane owner/operator has accomplished the installations or the initial inspection as currently required by AD 98-05-04, and do not account for repetitive inspections. The FAA has no way of determining the number of repetitive inspections each owner/operator of the affected airplanes will incur over the life of his/her airplane.

However, each repetitive inspection will cost substantially less than the initial inspection because the initial cost of the as-needed inspection hole/cover installations will not be repetitive. If installed, as-needed inspection holes/covers allow easy access for the inspection of the wood spars, and the compliance time will enable the owners/operators of the affected airplanes to accomplish the repetitive inspections at regularly scheduled annual inspections.

Does this AD impact various entities? The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

The FAA has received a report indicating that cracking of the aft end of an inboard flap track of the wing outboard flap was found on a Model 737-200 series airplane having improved flap tracks installed. The cracking was found during an inspection that was conducted to resolve problems with the trim that occurred during flight. The airplane had accumulated 38,484 flight cycles. The inner and outer webs of the track, as well as the upper and lower flanges, were severed. The only component holding the aft end of the flap track together was the fail-safe bar, which was bolted to the flap track. There was also a small section broken off the upper outboard chord. Further investigation revealed that the cracks were caused by corrosion at the fasteners that attach the fail-safe bar to the inner and outer webs. Such conditions, if not detected and corrected, could result in loss of the outboard trailing edge flap and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing All Operator Message (AOM) M-7200-00-01854, dated July 27, 2000, which describes procedures for a close (detailed) visual inspection to detect damage (corrosion, cracking) of the aft end of the left- and right-hand inboard flap tracks of the wing outboard flap, and corrective actions. The corrective actions consist of, among other things, repair or rework of any damaged flap tracks.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to detect and correct damage of the aft end of each flap track at the wing buttock line of the inboard flap track of the wing outboard flap, which could result in loss of the outboard trailing edge flap and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishment of the inspection and corrective actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed below.

Operators should note that the effectivity listing of the AOM specifies all Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes. However, this AD is applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes on which the flap tracks have certain Boeing part numbers. The subject flap tracks may have been removed from an airplane and re-installed, without being inspected, on another airplane. Therefore, the FAA finds it necessary to revise the applicability of this AD by limiting the repetitive inspections to only certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes on which certain flap tracks have been installed.

The AOM specifies a one-time close visual inspection of the aft end of the left- and right-hand inboard flap tracks of the wing outboard flap. This AD requires the applicable inspection to be repeated at intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight cycles, regardless of detection of cracking. The FAA has determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with fracture of the aft end of each inboard flap track of the wing outboard flap, repetitive inspections are necessary.

The AOM references only one flap track part number (P/N) 65-46428-25. The FAA has determined that there are other flap tracks with similar configurations at the aft end that have different P/N's, and those flap tracks would be subject to the same unsafe condition.

Additionally, the AOM specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions, however, this AD requires the repair of those conditions to be accomplished per a method approved by the FAA, or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings.

This is considered to be interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-365-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

On April 25, 2000, the FAA proposed to establish R-3203D, at Orchard, ID, to provide essential ground maneuvering space to meet the Idaho Army National Guard annual training requirements (65 FR 24141). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received objecting to the proposal. Except for editorial changes, and minor corrections to the Southern boundary of R-3203D, aligning it with the boundary of the existing R-3202A, this amendment is the same as that proposed in the Notice.

The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Section 73.32 of part 73 of the Federal Aviation Regulations was republished in FAA Order 7400.8H dated October 2, 2000.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 73 (part 73) establishes R-3203D, Orchard, ID, adjacent to the existing R-3203A to assist the Idaho Army National Guard annual training. The restricted area will be effective for a period of time not exceeding three weeks annually. Expansion in the number of gun batteries assigned to field artillery units, along with requirements that each assigned battery accomplish several moves per day to different firing points, has created the need to expand the available restricted airspace, for a period of time each year, to provide for more effective annual training tests. All artillery firing will be directed into existing impact areas located approximately in the center of R-3203A. This restricted area is needed to provide protected airspace to contain the projectiles during flight between the surface firing point and entry into the existing restricted area.

The restricted area will be utilized for a period of time not exceeding three weeks per year by the Idaho Army National Guard Field Artillery and will be released to the FAA for public use during periods when it is not required for military training.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has reviewed the environmental analysis contained within the Army National Guard Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the fielding of the Paladin Weapon System at Orchard Training Area. We find it provides the requisite update of the environmental conditions presented in the Army National Guard Environmental Impact Statement (ARNG EIS) dated August 1988 entitled “Orchard Training Areas; Birds of Prey Advisory Committee; Endangered Species Survey.”

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

On September 21, 2000 the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce, published in the Federal Register , volume 65, No. 184, FR 57121-57123, a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth revised reporting requirements for the BE-577, Direct Transactions of U.S. Reporter With Foreign Affiliate. No comments on the proposed rules were received. Thus, these final rules are the same as the proposed rules.

These final rules amend 15 CFR part 806.14 to set forth reporting requirements for the BE-577, Direct Transactions of U.S. Reporter With Foreign Affiliate. BEA will conduct the survey under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108) hereinafter, “the Act.” Section 4(a) of the Act requires that with respect to United States direct investment abroad, the President shall, to the extent he deems necessary and feasible—

(1) Conduct a regular data collection program to secure current information on international capital flows and other information related to international investment and trade in services, including (but not limited to) such information as may be necessary for computing and analyzing the United States balance of payments, the employment and taxes of United States parents and affiliates, and the international investment and trade in services position of the United States; and

(2) Conduct such studies and surveys as may be necessary to prepare reports in a timely manner on specific aspects of international investment and trade in services which may have significant implications for the economic welfare and national security of the United States.

In Section 3 of Executive Order 11961, the President delegated authority granted under the Act as concerns direct investment to the Secretary of Commerce, who has redelegated it to BEA.

The quarterly survey of U.S. direct investment abroad collects data on transactions and positions between U.S.-owned foreign business enterprises and their U.S. parents. The BE-577 is a cut-off sample survey that covers all foreign affiliates above a size-exemption level. The sample data are used to derive estimates in nonbenchmark years by extrapolating forward similar data reported in the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, which is taken every five years. The data are used in the preparation of the U.S. international transactions accounts, the input-output accounts, and the national income and product accounts. The data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of U.S. direct investment abroad, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. and foreign economies. The data are disaggregated by country and industry of foreign affiliate.

Under these final rules, BEA is increasing the exemption level for reporting on the BE-577 quarterly survey from $20 million to $30 million. The exemption level is the level of a foreign affiliate's assets, sales, or net income at or below which a Form BE-577 is not required. Thus, if a foreign business is owned 10 percent or more by the U.S. parent, but its total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, and net income all are $30 million (positive or negative) or less, the U.S. parent will not have to report it. The exemption level for the BE-577 survey was last raised following the 1994 benchmark survey and was first applicable to the quarterly survey covering the second quarter of 1995. The current changes in exemption level will first apply to the reports for the first quarter of 2001.

BEA has made a few changes to the report forms themselves in addition to raising the exemption level. These changes, however, did not require rule changes and are not reflected in the final rules. BEA is extending the use of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to the BE-577 survey. NAICS is already being used on all BEA surveys of foreign direct investment in the United States and BEA used NAICS to collect industry information on the 1999 BE-10 benchmark survey of U.S. direct investment abroad. In addition, BEA is modifying the detail on affiliated services by type of service by dropping the category for communication services in the by-type breakdown and adding the presumably larger measurement and consulting and research and development categories. BEA is also clarifying the instructions.

These final rules are not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

These final rules do not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

The collection of information required in these final rules has been approved by OMB (OMB No. 0608-0004) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

The survey is expected to result in the filing of about 12,500 foreign affiliate reports by an estimated 1,500 U.S. parent companies. A parent company must file one form per affiliate. The respondent burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 0.5 hours to 4 hours per response, with an average of 1.25 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Because reports are filed 4 times per year, 50,000 responses annually are expected. Thus the total annual respondent burden of the survey is estimated at 62,500 hours (12,500 respondents times 4 times 1.25 hours average burden).

Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information should be addressed to: Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0004, Washington, DC 20503 (Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA).

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Few, if any, small U.S. businesses are subject to the reporting requirements of this survey. Although the BE-577 survey does not itself collect data on the size of the U.S. companies that must respond, data collected on related BEA surveys indicate that the U.S. companies that have direct investments abroad tend to be quite large. The exemption level for the BE-577 survey is set in terms of the size of a U.S. company's foreign affiliates (foreign companies owned 10 percent or more by the U.S. company); if a foreign affiliate has assets, sales, or net income greater than the exemption level, it must be reported. Usually, the U.S. parent company that is required to file the report is many times larger than its largest foreign affiliate.

Small U.S. businesses tend to have few, if any, foreign affiliates and the foreign affiliates that they do own are small. With the increase in the exemption level for the BE-577 survey from $20 million to $30 million (stated in terms of the foreign affiliate's assets, sales, and net income), even fewer small U.S. businesses will be required to file reports for their foreign affiliates. The estimated annual cost to a U.S. business reporting for five or fewer foreign affiliates is estimated to be less than $1,000.

On September 21, 2000, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce, published in the Federal Register , volume 65, No. 184, FR 57123-57126, a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth revised reporting requirements for the BE-11, Annual Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad. No comments on the proposed rules were received. Thus, these final rules are the same as the proposed rules.

These final rules amend 15 CFR part 806.14 to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-11, Annual Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad. BEA will conduct the survey under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108), hereinafter, “the Act.” Section 4(a) of the Act requires that with respect to United States direct investment abroad, the President shall, to the extent he deems necessary and feasible—

(1) Conduct a regular data collection program to secure current information on international capital flows and other information related to international investment and trade in services, including (but not limited to) such information as may be necessary for computing and analyzing the United States balance of payments, the employment and taxes of United States parents and affiliates, and the international investment and trade in services position of the United States; and

(2) Conduct such studies and surveys as may be necessary to prepare reports in a timely manner on specific aspects of international investment which may have significant implications for the economic welfare and national security of the United States.

In Section 3 of Executive Order 11961, the President delegated authority granted under the Act as concerns direct investment to the Secretary of Commerce, who has redelegated it to BEA.

The annual survey of U.S. direct investment abroad provides a variety of measures of the overall operations of U.S. parent companies and their foreign affiliates, including total assets, sales, net income, employment and employee compensation, research and development expenditures, and exports and imports of goods. The BE-11 is a cut-off sample survey that covers all foreign affiliates (and their U.S. parent companies) above a size-exemption level. The sample data are used to derive universe estimates in nonbenchmark years by extrapolating forward similar data reported in the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, which is taken every five years. The data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of U.S. direct investment abroad, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. and foreign economies. The data are disaggregated by country and industry of the foreign affiliate and by industry of the U.S. parent.

The survey consists of an instruction booklet, a claim for not filing the BE-11, and the following report forms:

1. Form BE-11A—Report for nonbank U.S. Reporters;

2. Form BE-11B(LF) (Long Form)—Report for majority-owned nonbank foreign affiliates with assets, sales, or net income greater than $100 million (positive or negative);

3. Form BE-11B(SF) (Short Form)—Report for majority-owned nonbank foreign affiliates with assets, sales, or net income greater than $30 million, but not greater than $100 million (positive or negative); and

4. Form BE-11C—report for minority-owned nonbank foreign affiliates with assets, sales, or net income greater than $30 million (positive or negative).

Under these final rules, BEA is increasing the exemption level for reporting on the BE-11B(SF) short form and BE-11C form from $20 million to $30 million and the exemption level for reporting on the BE-11B(LF) long form from $50 million to $100 million. The exemption level for these forms is the level of a foreign affiliate's assets, sales, or net income at or below which a form is not required. In addition to raising the exemption levels, BEA is directing U.S. Reporters with total assets, sales, or gross operating revenues, and net income less than or equal to $100 million (positive or negative) to report only selected items on the BE-11A form.

For fiscal year 2002 only, these final rules will require the largest nonbank foreign affiliates owned between 10 and 20 percent to be reported on Form BE-11C, along with affiliates owned between 20 and 50 percent. In all years, reporting on Form BE-11C is required if an affiliate is owned between 20 and 50 percent by all U.S. Reporters combined and if its assets, sales, or net income exceed $30 million (positive or negative). Primarily to reduce reporting burden of the survey, affiliates owned less than 20 percent do not have to be reported annually. However, U.S. direct investment abroad is defined by law to include all foreign business enterprises owned 10 (not 20) percent or more, directly or indirectly, by a U.S. person. BEA conducts periodic benchmark surveys of U.S. direct investment abroad (the BE-10), covering all foreign affiliates owned 10 percent or more. A benchmark survey for the year 1999 is now being conducted; the next benchmark survey will cover the year 2004. In order to maintain reliable estimates of data for the universe of all foreign affiliates in nonbenchmark years, reporting for the largest affiliates owned between 10 and 20 percent is needed for at least one year between benchmark surveys. Although the U.S. ownership percentages in these affiliates are low, some of the affiliates are very large and have a sizable impact on the estimates. Under these final rules, submission of Form BE-11C for nonbank foreign affiliates owned directly and/or indirectly, at least 10 percent by one U.S. Reporter, but less than 20 percent by all U.S. Reporters of the affiliate combined, and for which assets, sales, or net income exceed $100 million (positive or negative) would be required for fiscal year 2002 only.

These new rules will first apply to the survey covering fiscal year 2000. The 2000 forms will be mailed out in March 2001 and will be due May 31, 2001.

BEA has made a few changes to the report forms themselves. These changes, however, did not require rule changes and are not reflected in the final rules. BEA is extending the use of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to the annual survey. NAICS is already being used on all BEA surveys of foreign direct investment in the United States and BEA used NAICS to collect industry information on the 1999 BE-10 benchmark survey of U.S. direct investment abroad.

In addition to the change in industry classification, BEA is adding equity ownership, interest received, and interest paid to the BE-11B(LF); expanding the owner's equity section on the BE-11B(LF); reducing the detail collected on the composition of external finances of the foreign affiliate on the BE-11B(LF); and deleting production royalty payments on the BE-11B(LF). Finally, BEA is making improvements in the layout of the survey forms, and in the placement and clarify of instructions. The design follows that used for the BE-10 benchmark survey.

These final rules are not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

These final rules do not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

The collection of information required in these final rules has been approved by OMB (OMB No. 0608-0053) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

The survey is expected to result in the filing of reports from about 1,500 respondents. The respondent burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 4 to 3,000 hours per response, with an average of 68.4 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus the total respondent burden of the survey is estimated at 102,600 hours (1,500 respondents times 68.4 hours average burden).

Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information should be addressed to: Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0053, Washington, DC 20503 (Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA).

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Few, if any, small U.S. businesses are subject to the reporting requirements of this survey. U.S. companies that have direct investments abroad tend to be quite large. The exemption level for the BE-11 survey is set in terms of the size of a U.S. company's foreign affiliates (foreign companies owned 10 percent or more by the U.S. company); if a foreign affiliate has assets, sales, or net income greater than the exemption level, it must be reported on Form BE-11B(LF), BE-11B(SF), or BE-11C. Usually, the U.S. parent company that is required to file the report is many times larger than its largest foreign affiliate. With the increase in the exemption level for the BE-11 survey from $20 million to $30 million, even fewer small U.S. businesses will be required to file. To further reduce the reporting burden on small businesses, U.S. Reporters with total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, and net income less than or equal to $100 million (positive or negative) are required to report only selected items on the BE-11A form for U.S. Reporters in addition to forms they may be required to file for their foreign affiliates.

Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL) http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and help.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

The text for the millennium edition of the MUTCD is available from the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations' web site at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

The FHWA announced its intent to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD on January 10, 1992, at 57 FR 1134. The purpose of this rewrite effort is to reformat the text for clarity of intended meanings, to include metric dimensions ( i.e., both English and metric dimensions will be included in the text) and values for the design and installation of traffic control devices, and to improve the overall organization and discussion of the contents in the MUTCD.

Although the Federal Highway Administrator is responsible for adopting the changes contained in this new millennium edition, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) took the lead in this effort to rewrite and reformat the MUTCD. The NCUTCD is a national organization of individuals from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of County Engineers (NACE), the American Public Works Association (APWA), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and other organizations that have extensive experience in the installation and maintenance of traffic control devices. The NCUTCD voluntarily assumed the arduous task of rewriting, reformatting and editing the entire 1988 MUTCD into an updated and more user friendly document.

The FHWA reviewed and incorporated most of the NCUTCD's proposals for revising the MUTCD in several Federal Register notices of proposed amendments. This document contains the disposition of the comments to the dockets of the notices of proposed amendments which were published in the Federal Register shown in the table below. The table also shows the number of letters submitted to each docket and the number of separate comments addressed as part of the FHWA review and deliberation.

Adopted changes to the MUTCD text, as discussed herein, are available on the MUTCD Internet site (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov). The final rule text will be available on the MUTCD Internet site in December 2000. Anyone unable to download the text should write to the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Operations, HOTO-1, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

The FHWA has reviewed the comments received in response to the dockets listed above and other information related to the MUTCD and these proposals. The FHWA is acting on the following items published in the notice of proposed amendments. Each action and its basis is summarized below:

The FHWA received 146 comments from 38 commenters concerning Part 1. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at 62 FR 64324 on December 5, 1997, and at 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999.

1. In Part 1 Introduction, the FHWA is incorporating a discussion on defining the following condition headings: STANDARD, OPTION, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT. This change addresses many comments received regarding the difficulty in distinguishing between distinct sections in previous editions of the MUTCD. In the NPA for Part 1, this discussion was covered in Section 1A.10 MUTCD Changes, Interpretations, and Experimentations. Based on docket comments, the FHWA believes it is important for the reader to see this discussion before proceeding to the other sections of the manual. Therefore, the FHWA is moving this discussion to the Introduction.

The FHWA is also changing the way that these condition headings appear throughout the text. The FHWA received many comments expressing a need for improvement in the blocked headings found in the notice of proposed amendments. An explanation of both the terms and new heading style is included in the Introduction.

Also being added is a new STANDARD statement indicating that any traffic control device design or application provision contained in the MUTCD shall be considered in the public domain. The FHWA will not include any copyrighted or patented devices in the MUTCD with the exception of the Interstate Shield, a copyrighted device developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Since this is a frequently asked question, the FHWA has decided to include language in the MUTCD to address this policy.

A new GUIDANCE paragraph is added to Part 1 Introduction to discuss the use of the International System of Units, a modernized version of the Metric system, and English units used throughout the MUTCD. The FHWA recommends that a decision be made to consistently use either the International System of Units (Metric) or English units in the design and installation of traffic control devices.

2. In Table I.1, Evolution of the MUTCD, two other revisions to the 1988 MUTCD are added for a total of seven revisions to the 1988 MUTCD, instead of the five revisions previously shown in the table. The FHWA has also added the new millennium edition to this table.

3. In Section 1A.01 Purpose of Traffic Control Devices, paragraph 1, the term “road users” is referenced. Road user is the preferred term because it encompasses both motorized and non-motorized traffic. The term “road user” is defined in Section 1A.13. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

4. In Section 1A.02 Principles of Traffic Control Devices, under the SUPPORT statement, the term “speed” is added as a variable that governs the design, operation, placement, and location of various traffic control devices. The traveling speed of road users can affect their ability to appropriately respond to the driving task. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

5. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices, under the STANDARD statement, the term “colors” is added to the statement that all symbols not shown in the “Standard Highway Signs”  1 book shall be adopted using the procedures described in Section 1A.10, “MUTCD Changes, Interpretations, and Experimentations.” The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

Also in this section, an OPTION is added to explain that State and local highway agencies may develop word message signs to notify road users of special regulations or situations. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

6. In Section 1A.05 Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices, GUIDANCE is added to explain the difference between functional and physical maintenance. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

7. In Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices, under the STANDARD statement, a reference to 23 CFR 655.603 is added to adopt the MUTCD as the national standard for all traffic control devices, and require that any State or other Federal agency MUTCD shall be in substantial conformance with the national standards. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

8. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control Devices, (titled in the 1999 NPA as “Placement Authority,”) paragraph 1, STANDARD language is added to require that all traffic control devices and any other signs or messages within the street or highway right-of-way shall be placed only as authorized by a public authority or official having jurisdiction for the street or highway. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

Also in Section 1A.08, GUIDANCE is added to indicate that any unauthorized traffic control device or any non-essential sign or message placed within the highway right-of-way should be removed. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments on this change.

9. In Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment (titled in the 1999 NPA as “Engineering Study or Judgment Required”), a clarification discussion on the difference between engineering study and engineering judgment is added. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to adding this discussion.

Also in Section 1A.09, one commenter stated that the word “required” in the title of this section (titled in the 1999 NPA as “Engineering Study or Judgment Required”), conflicts with the GUIDANCE given in this section. The FHWA agrees and has changed the title of this section to “Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment,” because that title more appropriately conveys the objective of the section.

The same commenter also recommended that the STANDARD statement, which provides that the inclusion of a traffic control device in the MUTCD is not a legal requirement for their installation, be deleted from this section because he did not see its purpose. The FHWA disagrees because the STANDARD statement complements the GUIDANCE paragraphs in this section that discuss that the decision to use a particular device should be made on the basis of an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment.

10. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, and Changes, STANDARD language is added to paragraph 1 to prohibit the design, application, and placement of traffic control devices other than those adopted in the MUTCD, unless the process for an interpretation, experimentation, or change is followed.

Also in Section 1A.10, is a new GUIDANCE statement indicating that any request for permission to experiment with a new traffic control device should contain a legally binding statement certifying that the traffic control device is not protected by a patent or a copyright since patented or copyright protected traffic control devices are not permitted in the MUTCD, except for the Interstate Shield.

11. A new Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases, is added. Definitions in this section are provided for terms that are universally used throughout the MUTCD. The definitions for terms found in only one section of the MUTCD can be found within the specific section. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to this change. However, the FHWA did receive editorial comments on some of the definitions, and they are incorporated as minor modifications to the text.

12. A new Section 1A.14 Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control Devices, is added. These abbreviations shall be the STANDARD for word messages used in conjunction with traffic control devices. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to this change. However, the FHWA did receive editorial comments which have been incorporated as minor modifications to the text.

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts 2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.

13. The heading for Chapter 2A is changed from “Introduction and General Standards” to “General Provisions and Standards.” This title better describes the discussion in this chapter. There were no docket comments on this change.

14. In Section 2A.01 Function and Purpose of Signs, the STANDARD is modified to make the design and application standards for “all” signs dependent on the particular class of highway on which they are used. The 1988 MUTCD only specified “guide” signs rather than “all” signs. The FHWA has also added “special purpose roads” to the list of highway classification definitions in this section. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

15. In Section 2A.07 the title is changed from “Variable Message Signs” to “Changeable Message Signs” which is more commonly used within the transportation field and throughout MUTCD Sections 6F.02 and 6F.52. The FHWA is also referring readers to Section 6F.02 for more detailed discussion on changeable message signs. There were no docket comments on this section.

16. In Section 2A.08 Illumination and Retroreflectivity, two tables are added (Table 2A.1 and 2A.2) to help clarify the text that used to be in Sections 2A.16, 2A.17, and 2A.18 of the 1988 MUTCD. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section. In the STANDARD statement, the requirement of sign retroreflectivity or illumination is extended to include guide signs. This requirement applies to all signs unless specifically stated otherwise in the MUTCD text for a particular sign or group of signs. The FHWA believes this will improve safety and visibility during adverse ambient conditions. There were no docket comments on this section.

17. In Section 2A.10 Shapes, a new Table 2A.3, Use of Shapes, is added. In this new table, the following shapes are for exclusive use: STOP sign, YIELD sign, pennant, crossbuck, and trapezoid. The trapezoid shape is exclusively for recreational signs. However, as one commenter noted, since most recreational signs currently installed are rectangular, the FHWA has also included the recreation signs in the guide signs category (see double asterisk in new table).

18. In Section 2A.1l Sign Colors, a new Table 2A.4, Uses of Sign Colors is added. The FHWA has also included a statement that the color coordinates and values shall conform to those shown in the color specifications described in the “Standard Highway Signs” (SHS) Book. 2 There were no docket comments on this section.

The FHWA believes that including this statement will help promote uniformity of colors where traffic control signs are designed and installed by providing the reader with a specific reference source for determining the proper color coordinates and values.

19. In Section 2A.13 Symbols, paragraph 2 explains that new symbol signs shall be adopted by FHWA based on research evaluation studies to determine comprehension data and recognition/legibility distance for the symbol sign. The FHWA added an OPTION statement for State and/or local highway agencies to conduct these research studies. There were no docket comments on this section.

20. In Section 2A.14 Word Messages, paragraph 2 provides GUIDANCE for determining sign letter heights is added. Sign letter heights should be determined based on 1 inch per 40 feet of legibility distance. The FHWA believes this amendment will improve sign legibility for all road users, especially for older road users whose vision may be diminished. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

In paragraph 5, an OPTION is provided for State and local highway agencies to use the combination of lowercase letters with initial uppercase letters for street name signs. In Section 2A.15 of the 1988 MUTCD, this OPTION only applied to destination guide signs and did not give States this flexibility. The FHWA has also eliminated the restriction for using series B alphabets only on street name signs. States now have the flexibility to use other standard series alphabets, as appropriate. There were no docket comments on this section.

21. In Section 2A.17 Overhead Sign Installations, the FHWA removed the restriction for placing signs on bridges located along only “urban” freeways and expressways in the OPTION statement. Overhead signs may be placed on “any” freeway or expressway bridge where feasible, to enhance safety and economy. This change provides more installation flexibility to State and local highway agencies. There were no docket comments on this section.

22. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, paragraph 7 allows State and local highway agencies the OPTION to adjust the mounting height of signs when the sign supports are located near the edge of the right-of-way on a steep backslope. There were no docket comments on this section.

23. In the first paragraph of Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, a STANDARD is added that requires sign supports within the clear zone to be breakaway or shielded for the safety of the road user particularly in run-off-road incidents. There were no docket comments on this section.

24. In Section 2A.23 Maintenance, GUIDANCE is added to paragraph 2 which recommends that maintenance inspections be conducted both day and night. Although this is a general practice among many engineering and transportation officials, the FHWA believes it is a practice worth reiterating in the MUTCD. There were no docket comments on this section.

25. In Section 2A.24 Wrong-Way Traffic Control, the FHWA has deleted the OPTION and SUPPORT text that appeared in the NPA and modified the figures to more accurately show the typical sign application for wrong-way traffic control. This change helps the text read clearer and is based on the FHWA internal review process which identified inconsistencies, redundancy, and confusion between the text and the accompanying typical figures.

The FHWA received 304 comments from 86 commenters concerning Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 71358 on December 21, 1999.

26. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA received several comments requesting the addition of a table that depicts sign sizes. The FHWA has adopted a similar format to the one recommended by the NCUTCD that expands the sign category headings to cover additional sizes. Table 2B-1 lists sign sizes for Conventional Roads, Expressways, and Freeways, “minimum” and “oversized” signs.

27. In Section 2B.04 STOP Sign, paragraph 3, under the STANDARD statement, we proposed text requiring the use of the 4-way supplemental plaque (R1-3) at intersections where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs. This practice was optional in the 1988 MUTCD. The FHWA received one comment in opposition to this adopted change. The FHWA has adopted this requirement because it believes the use of the supplemental plaque will provide additional emphasis and motorist information at the stop location.

The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 3 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the normal service life. This change takes effect immediately for all new installations.

28. The proposed amendment to Section 2B.05 STOP Sign Applications recommended changing the title of this section from “Warrants for Stop Signs” to “STOP Sign Applications.” This change eliminates the misunderstanding created by the term “warrants” which has a “legal sanctions” connotation. No commenters objected to this amendment, therefore the FHWA has changed the section title as proposed.

Several commenters indicated disappointment that the GUIDANCE statement in Section 2B.05, paragraph 1, was not upgraded to a STANDARD since many local governments receive frequent requests for STOP signs to be installed for speed control. Traffic engineers would like to have the language in the MUTCD that would back up their decision when faced with political pressure to install STOP signs to control speed. The FHWA does not consider this sufficient justification to elevate this GUIDANCE to a STANDARD requirement, particularly when you consider the potential impacts on local governments. Two commenters questioned why an engineering study, as opposed to an engineering judgment, was not required in the NPA. The FHWA believes that it is more practical to recommend that an engineering study be done for multi-way stops and that engineering judgment be used for one-way or two-way stops.

29. The FHWA received no objections to the proposed language in Section 2B.06 Stop Sign Placement, changing the language from OPTION to GUIDANCE for using STOP lines to supplement a STOP sign. The FHWA believes that the use of the STOP line will provide the road user with additional information for making safe traffic operation decisions, therefore the proposal is adopted.

Also in this section, under GUIDANCE, the FHWA received no comments objecting to the proposed language stating that the STOP signs should not be placed on the far side of the intersection. The text has been modified to clarify that when only one sign is installed, the STOP sign should not be placed on the far side of the intersection. This would allow the use of a supplemental STOP sign on the left side which may be appropriate in some cases.

30. In Section 2B.07 Multi-way Stop Sign Applications, paragraph 3, the FHWA added GUIDANCE to recommend that the decision to install Multi-way Stop signs should be based on an engineering study. The FHWA offers the same rationale that was provided in Section 2B.05, which addresses the reasoning for the use of engineering judgment as opposed to engineering study.

Several commenters responded to the GUIDANCE statement (in item C.1) which lists the criteria to consider in an engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation. There is a misunderstanding that the criteria was reduced from 500 to 300 vehicles per hour. The 1988 MUTCD provides for 500 vehicles per hour from all approaches and 200 combined vehicular and pedestrian units per hour from the minor-street approaches. The revised text provides: “1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour * * * ” This is the same criteria presented in a slightly different manner.

Additionally, Item C.2 of the criteria includes bicycle volumes to the combination volume studies of vehicles and pedestrians. The FHWA believes that bicycle travel is an integral part of traffic control considerations. Therefore, this should improve the traffic data when considering installation of traffic control devices. One commenter pointed out that typical count methods do not allow for comprehensive counting of bicycles over long time periods. The FHWA agrees that manual counts are routinely done over an 8-12 hour period in order to gather pedestrian and bicyclist data. It is true that automatic 24-hour counts, typically done by machines with rubber tubes across the roadway, cannot count bicycles; however, video methods offer a highly effective means to capture this data. Since the language is provided under GUIDANCE, the FHWA does not believe that this will cause an inconvenience to traffic engineers.

31. In Section 2B.11 Speed Limit Sign, a sentence is added to the OPTION statement to read: “A changeable message sign that changes for traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the appropriate speed limit is shown at the proper times.” In the NPA this was suggested as an addition to Section 2B.13 Night Speed Limit Sign. After reconsideration by the FHWA and from comments provided on this issue, it was determined that it be placed in Section 2B.11, because this is not necessarily a night condition.

32. In Section 2B.16 Reduced Speed Ahead Sign (R2-5 series), the FHWA received one comment regarding the proposed assembly method B under OPTION which when applied to a metric assembly, could require a five-sign configuration for an advance notice of change in speed limit. The FHWA believes that since this method is “optional” and not a requirement, its inclusion under OPTION is appropriate.

Also in this section, one comment was received suggesting that the background color for the supplemental plaques in GUIDANCE be changed from the color yellow to white so that motorists will not confuse this sign assembly with the School Speed Limit Sign Assembly. The FHWA agrees and has modified the language to read “When used with Speed Limit assemblies, the supplemental plaques should have a white background with a black legend and border, except for the METRIC plaque (see Section 2B.11).” The FHWA believes that it is essential that the METRIC plaque be distinct to draw attention to the use of metric units in that particular jurisdiction. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after the normal service life. This change is effective immediately for new sign installations.

33. In Section 2B.17 Turn Prohibition Signs (R3-1 to R3-4) (referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.15), the FHWA is combining the language for the Turn Prohibition and the U-Turn Prohibition signs into one section. No negative comments were received for this amendment.

The FHWA received one comment suggesting that the following text be added as an OPTION: “Where ONE WAY signs are used, Turn Prohibition signs may be omitted (see Section 2B.31).” The FHWA agrees and is adding this language because this may reduce the number of sign messages and prevent driver message overload.

34. In Section 2B.19 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs (R3-5, R3-5a and R3-7) (referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.16), the FHWA proposed adding a new Mandatory Movement Lane Control Sign (R3-5a) under OPTION to explain to road users that they must stay in the same lane and proceed straight through an intersection. Two comments were received that recommended changing the name of this sign to a “Straight Through Only” sign, which is a more specific description of the sign's intent. The FHWA agrees and is adopting this change.

Also in Section 2B.19 Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs, a GUIDANCE statement is added to read: “Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs should be accompanied by lane control pavement markings, especially where traffic volumes are high, where there is a high percentage of commercial vehicles, or where other distractions exist.” This was proposed as a requirement in the NPA, which stated that whenever lane use control signs are installed, lane-use pavement markings shall also be installed, and seven commenters objected to this proposal and mentioned that many jurisdictions are successfully using this signing without markings, and that making this condition mandatory may constitute an unfunded mandate creating serious hardships on many jurisdictions. The FHWA agrees with these suggestions, and believes that this language is more appropriately included as an OPTION in Section 2B.19.

35. In Section 2B.30 WRONG WAY Sign (R5-1a), the FWHA proposed to include a reference to Figure 2-5a which shows the signing and pavement marking treatments for divided highway intersections with medians 9 m (30 ft). Based on the negative comments received on the proposed figure, the FHWA has revised the figure to only depict WRONG WAY signing. The figure is renumbered Figure 2B-2, “Typical Wrong Way Signing for Divided Highways.”

36. In Section 2B.32 ONE WAY Sign (R6-1, R6-2), the FHWA proposed to change the recommendation regarding placement of the One Way signs from a recommendation to a requirement. The FHWA received one negative comment regarding the change from GUIDANCE to STANDARD, stating the rationale that alley traffic is familiar traffic and that the current practice has been proven over time to be adequate. The FHWA disagrees with this comment and is adopting the proposed amendment. Not all traffic in alleys will always be familiar traffic, and this new requirement will increase safety by reducing the chance of road users inadvertently making wrong-way movements.

Another commenter to this section suggested adding a compliance period to relieve the cost burden on local agencies. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the normal service life.

37. In Section 2B.35 Design of Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs, the FHWA inadvertently omitted the proposed text, stating that all street parking signs are to be illuminated or retroreflective. This text is consistent with Section 2A.08 Illumination and Retroreflectivity, which discusses the general provisions and standards for signs. The FHWA believes the language that addresses retroreflectivity and illumination is best discussed as a STANDARD in Section 2B.01 Application of Regulatory Signs. The FHWA is adopting the following text: “Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to show the same shape or similar color by both day and night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the MUTCD text discussion of a particular sign or group of signs (see Section 1A.08).

38. In Section 2B.37 Emergency Restriction Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 2B.36, paragraph 3), FHWA is providing States with the choice of either using red or black legend and border on a white background for these signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments opposed to this adopted change.

39. The 1988 MUTCD contained a sentence that the WALK ON LEFT (R9-1) and NO HITCHHIKING (R9-4) signs do not have to be retroreflective. However, the FHWA is changing this and requiring that all signs, including these pedestrian signs, shall be either illuminated or retroreflective. The FHWA did not receive any comments opposed to this adopted change.

40. In Section 2B.40 Traffic Signal Signs, the FHWA proposed adding two new symbol signs for NO RIGHT TURN ON RED (R10-11c) and NO LEFT TURN ON RED (R10-11d). Three commenters disagreed with the use of these symbol signs as alternatives to the word legend R10-11a and R10-11b signs. Their concern was that these new symbol signs may be confused with the R3-1R (NO RIGHT TURN) and the R3-1L (NO LEFT TURN) symbol signs and will lead to increased violations for No Right Turn or No Left Turns situations. The FHWA believes that since the use of the proposed signs is an OPTION and not a requirement, that jurisdictions should be able to have the option of using either word message signs or these new symbol signs. Therefore, the text has been modified to read: “A symbolic NO TURN ON RED sign (R10-11c) may be used as an alternate to the R10-11a and R10-11b signs.”

41. The FHWA added two new sections to address High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) signing: Section 2B.49 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, and Section 2B.50 High Occupancy Vehicle Sign Applications and Placement. No commenters objected to this amendment.

The FWHA has deleted the R3-18 and R3-19 HOV signs from the text and Table 2B-1. These signs have been replaced by the remaining HOV signs found in Table 2B-1. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 6 years after the effective date of the final rule to minimize any potential impact on State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after the normal service life. Immediate compliance is required for all new installations.

The FHWA received 329 comments from 42 commenters concerning Chapter 2C. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999, under docket number FHWA-1999-5704.

42. The following general changes are in Chapter 2C: the various sizes of warning signs are shown in Table 2C-2; and the sections in 2C are grouped and discussed according to category type and application. Table 2C-1 shows the categories, application, appropriate sections, and sign numbers for the warning signs discussed in Chapter 2C. The table is designed so that it is easy to reference this information. The section topics are grouped by roadway-related, traffic-related, and non-vehicle related categories.

43. In Section 2C.02 Application of Warning Signs, paragraph 2 includes language that was proposed in the NPA as Section 2C.35 Motorized Traffic Signs. The language indicating that warning signs should be removed or covered when conditions or activities are seasonal or temporary is more appropriate for inclusion in Section 2C.02 which discusses general application for all warning signs. This language is removed from the section on “Motorized Traffic Signs.”

In Table 2C-2 Warning Sign Sizes, the minimum sizes of the following signs are increased from 600 mm (24 inches) to 750 mm (30 inches): Merge Sign (W4-1), Narrow Bridge Sign (W5-2), Two-Way Traffic Sign (W6-3), and the Double Arrow Sign (W12-1). This change makes the minimum size consistent with other signs in the respective sign series and improve the sign visibility for road users, particularly older drivers. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after their normal service life. This change is effective immediately for all new installations.

The FHWA received comments from the Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT) and an engineering concerning Table 2C-2. The WDOT suggested that all diamond warning signs in this table should be the same size for a given roadway type facility. The example given was that the Curve Sign (W1 Series) requires more decision and reaction time than the Merge Sign (W4 Series). Therefore, the WDOT suggests that the Curve Sign, when used on expressways and freeways, should be at least the same size as shown for the Merge Sign which is 1200 mm x 1200 mm (48 inches by 48 inches). The FHWA agrees that there is a need to further study this issue of sign size consistency, and we will revisit it as part of a future notice of proposed amendments.

An engineering consultant suggested that the FHWA delete the term “standard size” used as a heading in Table 2C-2 because in tort liability cases, the term “standard size” is misunderstood and requires explanation. Based on this comment, the FHWA has revised Table 2C-2 to relate the warning sign sizes to the roadway classification using the following headings: Conventional Roads, Expressway, and Freeway. The FHWA has added a supplemental Table 2C-2a to show the minimum and oversized warning sign sizes.

44. In Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment Signs, the discussion for each of the horizontal alignment signs (W1-1 through W1-5) are combined into one section. A Table 2C-4 has been added to provide guidance for determining when to use the horizontal alignment signs based on the number of alignment changes and based on whether or not the advisory speed is greater than, equal to, or less than 50 km/h (30 mph).

45. In Section 2C.07 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Speed Sign, a new W1-9 sign is added to the MUTCD. The W1-9 sign combines the Turn (W1-1) Sign or the Curve (W1-2) Sign with the Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1) to create one sign. The FHWA has also included a reference to this sign in Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment Signs. In the NPA, the FHWA indicated that the W1-9 sign shall be installed within the turn or curve. However, based on the docket comments from the Illinois DOT, the Ohio DOT, and the Ohio Institute of Transportation Engineers, the FHWA has revised paragraph 2 to indicate that this sign shall be installed at the beginning of the turn or curve to give motorists prior warning before they enter the curve. The FHWA also received a comment from Pierce County, Washington indicating that this sign has potential application in urban or lower speed conditions. The FHWA agrees and has included a minimum size of 900 mm x 900 mm (36 x 36 inches) when this sign is used on low speed facilities.

46. In Section 2C.08 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection Sign, a new W1-10 sign is added to the MUTCD. The W1-10 sign combines the Turn (W1-1) sign or the Curve (W1-2) sign with the Cross Road (W2-1) sign or Side Road (W2-2, W2-3) signs to create one sign. The FHWA has added a reference to this sign in Section 2C.06. The FHWA has deleted the following paragraph which was formerly paragraph 3 in the NPA: “The Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection sign should not be used if there is adequate roadway length to provide for separate signs showing each of the applicable features.” Based on comments received, the FHWA believes that even when adequate space is available to install separate signs, this combination sign can provide a clearer message to the road user, and the decision to use this sign should be left to the State or local agency's discretion.

47. In Section 2C.10 Chevron Alignment Sign, based on a docket comment that the FHWA received from the Illinois DOT, the FHWA has added an OPTION to install the Chevron Alignment (W1-8) sign on the far side of an intersection to inform road users of a change in horizontal alignment through an intersection.

48. In Section 2C.12 Truck Escape Ramp Signs, a new TRUCK ESCAPE RAMP word message (W7-4c) sign is added to the MUTCD. Since this term is more widely and commonly used, the FHWA has included it as an OPTION to the RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP word message (W7-4) sign. The FHWA has included GUIDANCE for installing No Parking (R8-3 series) signs near the ramp entrance due to the potential hazard caused by parking at these ramp locations.

49. In Section 2C.13 Road Narrows Sign, an OPTION to use the Advisory Speed (W13-1) plaque with the ROAD NARROWS (W5-1) sign is added.

50. In Section 2C.20 Low Clearance Sign, the use of the Low Clearance (W12-2) sign is required to notify road users of clearances less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height or minimum structure height. Providing this critical information is especially important to operators of large vehicles.

51. A new Section 2C.22 Speed Hump Sign and new word message sign (W17-1) is added. The FHWA received a docket comment from the NCUTCD requesting this new word message sign. With the prevalent application of traffic calming techniques within residential communities and the possibility of States developing their own word message signs, the FHWA believes it is appropriate to include a standard word message sign in the MUTCD. In an effort to promote uniformity and discourage a proliferation of States using a variety of signs, the FHWA adopts the SPEED HUMP sign recommended by the NCUTCD. The addition of this new section means that the section numbers for the sections following 2C.22 are changed.

52. In Section 2C.24 Shoulder Signs, language is added to describe the application of the SOFT SHOULDER (W8-4) sign, the LOW SHOULDER (W8-9) sign, the SHOULDER DROP-OFF (W8-9a) sign, and the UNEVEN LANE (W8-11) sign. These word message signs are also appropriate for use in work zones (MUTCD Part 6). Since Part 6 references the signs but does not include a description, the FHWA has included an application discussion for these signs. The symbols for these existing signs have created confusion and misunderstanding. Therefore, the symbol signs are deleted in lieu of word messages. A phase-in compliance period of 10 years from the effective date of this final rule is provided so that State and local agencies can replace their existing symbol signs with word message signs over the course of the normal service life of the signs.

53. In Section 2C.26 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3 series), all of the Advance Traffic Control signs are combined into one section. The Advance Traffic Control signs include: The Stop Ahead (W3-1a), the Yield Ahead (W3-2a), the Signal Ahead (W3-3), and a new BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign. A new word message sign was submitted as a docket comment from the NCUTCD. This word message sign was already adopted in MUTCD Part 6, Work Zones. The MUTCD Part 6 shows the sign but does not have any descriptive text accompanying the sign. The FHWA believes this word message sign is appropriate for inclusion in both Chapter 2C and Part 6 because it advises road users that they may encounter traffic congestion or stopped traffic caused by traffic signals. This amendment includes descriptive text to discuss the application of the BE PREPARED TO STOP sign.

Also in this section, the FHWA received comments from the city of Bellevue, Washington and the Washington DOT indicating that they have installed Street Name plaques with the Advance Traffic Control signs and have had no negative effects. Therefore, in the first OPTION statement of Section 2C.26 the FHWA has modified the sentence to allow the OPTION of installing a supplemental Street Name plaque above or below any Advance Traffic Control sign rather than just the Signal Ahead sign because it gives States more flexibility.

54. In Section 2C.27 Cross Traffic Does Not Stop plaque, a new (W4-4P) plaque is added. This plaque is intended to warn road users that they are approaching a 2-way stop controlled intersection. This new word message plaque is based on research conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute  3 and on recommendations included in the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook.”  4 The FHWA believes it is appropriate from a safety standpoint to add this new warning sign to help road users quickly identify the type of stop controlled intersection. The FHWA did not receive any docket comments opposed to this new plaque. However, the FHWA did receive a comment suggesting that we add the OPTION to use this plaque on 1-way stop controlled T-intersections and the FHWA has included this modification.

The FHWA also received comments from the city of Bellevue, Washington and the Texas DOT questioning the appropriate color of the CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP plaque. In response to these comments, and since this plaque is intended as a warning message to provide advance notice of an upcoming situation, language is added that the plaque colors are black legend on a yellow background. In State and local jurisdictions where this plaque is intended to regulate traffic, this plaque may be placed on the same post as the STOP sign. When used with the STOP sign, the colors are black legend on a white background.

55. In Section 2C.30, paragraph 4, a new sentence is added that roadway delineation may also be used to notify road users of lane reduction situations. The OPTION to use pavement markings in addition to the Lane Ends signs will provide additional guidance information to the road users.

Also in paragraph 5 of this section, GUIDANCE is included to indicate that, in situations where an extra lane has been added for slower moving traffic, a Lane Ends sign should be installed in advance of the end of the extra lane.

56. In Section 2C.33 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs, GUIDANCE is added to clarify the difference between when the Exit Speed (W13-2) signs and the Ramp Speed (W13-3) signs should be used. Based on deliberation comments made to the docket review, the FHWA has changed the title of this section and included a new Curve Speed (W13-5) sign. This sign was not discussed in the NPA, but the FHWA believes it should be included in the MUTCD because it provides the advisory speed on roads and highways at the beginning of horizontal alignment changes. The Curve Speed sign is designed exactly like the Exit and Ramp Speed sign.

57. In Section 2C.34 Intersection Warning Signs, an OPTION to install an Advance Street Name (W16-8) plaque in conjunction with the intersection warning signs is provided. This change provides helpful advance information to the road user.

Also in this section, the FHWA has added a new Circular Intersection (W2-6) symbol sign that was submitted by the NCUTCD. The FHWA received comments from the Texas, Missouri, and Oregon DOTs in favor of a different symbol that was similar to the roundabout symbol used in Europe. With the advent of traffic calming practices in residential communities, the FHWA believes it is important to take advantage of this opportunity to include a sign in the MUTCD for circular intersections. Until further research can be done on another symbol, the FHWA plans to include the symbol submitted by the NCUTCD and to include language indicating that the symbol be accompanied by an educational word message plaque.

58. A new Section 2C.36 Motorized Traffic Signs is added. Motorized traffic signs are used to alert road users to unexpected entries into the roadway by trucks, farm vehicles, emergency vehicles, and other vehicles.

Also in this section, a new EMERGENCY SIGNAL AHEAD (W11-12) warning sign for use with the Emergency Vehicle (W11-8) symbol sign is added. These two signs are required in advance of all emergency vehicle traffic control signals (Chapter 4F).

Based on FHWA internal comments made during the docket review deliberations, this section has also been revised to include an OPTION to use other word message warning signs to indicate the type of emergency vehicle station ahead (such as rescue squad, etc.) in situations when no emergency signal is present.

59. In Section 2C.37 Crossing Signs, a new design and application for advance crossing and crossing signs is added. In the past, the crossing signs were distinguished from the advance crossing signs by the use of crosswalk lines on the sign. However, people rarely noticed the difference. The FHWA has changed the design of these signs by deleting the crosswalk lines and using one sign for both the advance and the crossing location. The crossing sign when used to provide advance notice to road users is supplemented with the legend “AHEAD” or with an appropriate distance plaque. The crossing sign is used adjacent to crossings and must be supplemented with a diagonal downward pointing arrow when the crossing does not have pavement markings. If pavement markings are used to mark the crosswalk, then only the crossing sign is needed and the diagonal downward pointing arrow is optional. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is effective immediately for new sign installations.

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts 2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.

60. Throughout Chapter 2D, the FHWA is replacing the word “marker” with the word “sign,” since these route and auxiliary markers are generally considered signs. The sign numbers, however, will continue to carry the “M” designation (example: M1-4) so that the State's sign inventory will not need to change. Also, a reference to Chapter 2A is included to remind readers to check there for placement, location, and other general criteria for signs, since this information is not repeated in every section. There were no docket comments on this section.

61. In Section 2D.03 Color, Retroreflection, and Illumination, the STANDARD statement in paragraph 3 is modified to extend the general requirements for retroreflectivity and/or illumination to “all” guide sign messages and legends, unless specific exceptions are provided. This is consistent with Section 2A.08 which requires all signs to be retroreflective and/or illuminated. There were no docket comments on this section.

62. In Section 2D.09 Numbered Highway Systems, a sentence is added to paragraph 5 which states that the highest priority route sign legend shall be placed on top or to the left of the sign panel. This will help the road user better identify the class of roadway (example: Interstate vs. County route). There were no docket comments on this section.

63. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, paragraph 6 allows the OPTION of placing a white sign panel behind the Off-Interstate Business Route signs when they are installed on a green guide sign. This amendment will improve the sign's contrast and conspicuity. There were no docket comments on this section.

64. In Section 2D.15 Cardinal Direction Auxiliary Sign, the first letter of cardinal direction messages is increased by 10 percent. Increasing the first letter of cardinal direction signs such as EAST and WEST, helps the road user in the navigation task by providing a clearer distinction between the similar appearance of these two messages. This same principle is true for the NORTH and SOUTH cardinal directions. This change was previously adopted in revision number 5 to the 1988 MUTCD and is mentioned here to bring attention to the compliance date which was December 31, 1994. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

65. In Section 2D.33 Destination and Distance Signs, the OPTION statement is changed to add the placement of the route sign and cardinal direction within the destination sign panel. When this option is used, the size of the route sign and cardinal direction auxiliary sign should be at least the minimum size specified for these signs. There were no docket comments on this section.

66. In Section 2D.34 Destination Signs, paragraph 9 recommends that when there are four destinations, they should be shown on two separate sign panels. The FHWA has changed this from a requirement (as shown in the 1988 edition of the MUTCD) to a GUIDANCE in order to allow State and local highway agencies more flexibility. The FHWA believes this change is appropriate since the OPTION in paragraph 10 allows all four destinations on one sign panel in situations where spacing is critical. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

67. In the 1988 edition of the MUTCD, distance signs were required to be placed approximately 500 feet outside the municipal limits or at the edge of the built-up district. Section 2D.37 Location of Distance Signs, eliminates this specific distance requirement and allows the State and local highway agencies the flexibility to determine the appropriate sign location. There were no docket comments on this section.

68. The FHWA received comments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and reviewed the recommendations in the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook,”  5 which suggest that a discussion for installing street name signs on overhead mast arms be included in the MUTCD. Since many State and local highway agencies are already using this application and it does improve sign visibility, the FHWA is adopting this as an OPTION in paragraph 11 of Section 2D.38 Street Name Sign. At intersections having two different street names, the FHWA is also adopting the OPTION to show both street names on one panel with appropriate directional arrows. This is consistent with the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook” and will also optimize sign visibility for the road user.

69. In Section 2D.44 General Service Signs, paragraph 15 is changed to eliminate the term “opaque background” since all backgrounds shall be either retroreflective or illuminated as discussed in Section 2D.03. There were no docket comments on this section.

In this same section, an OPTION is added to use the new word message sign “ROAD CONDITION DIAL 511” to notify road users of road and traffic conditions. This is a new OPTION that was not included in the NPA because at the time, it had not been approved by the Federal Communications Commission.

70. The title of Section 2D.45 proposed in the NPA is changed from “Milepost Markers” to “Reference Posts.” This change is based on internal review discussions during the FHWA's deliberation of docket comments. The FHWA has changed the title of this section to “Reference Posts” since this is a more accurate description.

The FHWA has also modified this section in paragraph 11 of the OPTION statement to eliminate the provision for placement of the kilometer (mile) fractions on the back of the post or on a separate small plate. The text in the 1988 edition of the MUTCD was written more for road maintenance and public works activities. This modification is being made to help road users better identify their location in emergency situations.

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts 2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.

71. Chapters 2E (Guide Signs—Expressway) and 2F (Guide Signs—Freeways) in the 1988 MUTCD are combined into a new Chapter 2E titled “Guide Signs—Freeways and Expressways.” The FHWA did not receive any comments.

72. In Section 2E.05, a STANDARD sentence is added in paragraph 1 to provide that signs which are not illuminated must be retroreflective.

Also in this section, paragraph 4 recommends that all overhead sign installations should be illuminated unless an engineering study shows that retroreflection alone will perform effectively. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

73. In Section 2E.06 Characteristics of Urban Signing, the first paragraph adds item H concerning visual clutter from roadside development to the list of features which characterize urban conditions. Growth in business development and environmental changes make this an appropriate item to consider when installing signs since excessive signs may create information overload for some road users and may complicate the navigation task. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

Also in this section, the second paragraph contains a list of special sign treatments for improving travel on urban freeways and expressways. The FHWA is amending item H to this list as follows: “Frequent use of street names as the principal message in guide signs.” This amendment improves the guidance information provided to road users. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

74. In Section 2E.08 Memorial Highway Signing, the GUIDANCE in paragraph 1 is expanded to include all freeways and expressways in the discussion of classes of highways that should not be signed as memorial highways. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

75. In Section 2E.09 Amount of Legend on Guide Signs, paragraph 1 clarifies the previous GUIDANCE in the 1988 MUTCD which addressed the appropriate number of destinations on major guide signs in general. The FHWA is changing the wording to clarify that not more than two destination names or street names should be shown on the following specific signs: Advance Guide signs or Exit Direction signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

76. In Section 2E.12 Designation of Destinations, paragraph 4 highlights the fact that AASHTO is responsible for the selection of control cities shown on guide signs.

77. In Section 2E.16 Abbreviations, the second paragraph in GUIDANCE provides for using periods on expressway and freeway signs. It provides that periods should not be used except when a cardinal direction is abbreviated as part of a destination name. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

78. In Section 2E.17 Symbols, paragraph 1 requires that symbol designs be essentially like those shown in the MUTCD and the “Standard Highway Signs Book.”  6

79. In Section 2E.19 Diagrammatic Signs, the FHWA in the NPA proposed as a STANDARD the requirement of showing only one destination for each directional arrowhead on diagrammatic signs. Based on comments to the docket by the Missouri Department of Transportation, the FHWA has decided to recommend rather than require the practice of showing only one destination for each arrowhead on a diagrammatic sign. The recommended number of destinations is two for each sign. However, the FHWA recognizes that there are some special situations where there are more than two principle destinations at the interchange and changing this sentence to GUIDANCE provides more flexibility to State and local highway agencies.

80. In Section 2E.20 Signing for Interchange Lane Drops, the last sentence in paragraph 1 is added to prohibit the use of the EXIT ONLY panel on diagrammatic signs at any major bifurcation or split. This change is intended to eliminate a potentially confusing situation for road users. The FHWA did not receive any comments.

81. In Section 2E.21 Changeable Message Signs, the FHWA is including GUIDANCE in paragraph 3(a) to indicate that the desirable letter size for changeable message signs is 450 mm (18 inches) or a minimum letter size of 265 mm (10.6 inches). The FHWA is also including additional criteria (as discussed in MUTCD Part 6) for the use of changeable message sign.

82. In Section 2E.24 Lateral Clearance, paragraph 1 adds a discussion on the importance of the clear zone and breakaway supports when determining the horizontal clearance distance for sign installation.

83. In Section 2E.29 Interchange Exit Numbering, paragraph 2 increases the vertical dimension of the exit number panel from 600 mm (24 inches) to 750 mm (30 inches). This change is adopted because it improves the visibility of critical sign information for directing the road users to their destinations. Since the FHWA received comments from North Carolina, Missouri, and Minnesota Departments of Transportation expressing concern regarding the impact of implementing this change for existing installations, the FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after the normal service life. This change takes effect immediately for all new installations.

Also in this section, the text in the OPTION statement is modified to recommend the use of milepost numbering as the preferred method for interchange exit numbering. Consecutive numbering is optional for those States which are still working towards changing over to milepost numbering. The FHWA received a docket comment from the Ohio Department of Transportation suggesting this change.

Additionally in this section, the FHWA has included an OPTION to add the word “LEFT” to the exit number panel. Since left exits are generally fewer and tend to violate expectancy, the FHWA believes that this OPTION will help the road user identify proper lane placement prior to the exit.

84. In Section 2E.31 Advance Guide Signs, the paragraph 2 GUIDANCE statement includes placement of Advance Guide signs in advance of the exit gore. The distance of an Advance Guide sign is changed from “400m to 1km” to “1 to 2 km ( 1/2 to 1 mile)” from the exit gore. This change places the Advance Guide sign back further from the exit gore in order to provide more decision and reaction time to the road user. Although the FHWA did not receive any comments expressing concern with this change, the FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations in order to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of the existing signs after their normal service life. This change is effective immediately for all new installations.

85. In Section 2E.33 Other Supplemental Guide Signs, paragraph 2 adds GUIDANCE for installing only one supplemental guide sign on each interchange approach. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.

86. In Section 2E.34 Exit Direction Signs, paragraph 2 prohibits the use of population figures or other similar information on Exit Direction signs. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.

Also in this section, the second GUIDANCE statement deletes the words “cantilevered support” and allows the Exit Direction sign to be installed on any overhead support located over the exit lane in advance of a gore point.

The change in the last sentence of Section 2E.34, paragraph 10 is revised from that proposed in the NPA in response to a docket comment from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Instead of recommending that the Exit Direction sign should be mounted on the face of the overhead structure, the FHWA is changing this to an OPTION to allow more flexibility at those locations that may not have available overhead structures.

87. In Section 2E.41 Signing by Type of Interchange, paragraph 3 provides GUIDANCE that the signing layout should be similar for interchanges which have only one exit ramp in the direction of travel. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.

88. In Section 2E.42 Freeway-to-Freeway Interchange, an OPTION is added for installing overhead guide signs at the 1 km ( 1/2 mile) and 4 km (2 mile) points. This OPTION is in addition to the required overhead guide signs at the 2 km (1 mile) point and at the theoretical gore of each connecting ramp.

89. In Section 2E.48 Closely-Spaced Interchanges, paragraph 1 is changed from that proposal in the NPA in response to a docket comment from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Instead of mandating or requiring that the advance guide signs for the next interchange should be mounted on an overhead structure, the FHWA is changing the GUIDANCE to an OPTION in an effort to allow more flexibility at those locations that may not have available overhead structures.

90. In Section 2E.52 General Service Signs, paragraph 2 adds an OPTION that allows an action message, such as NEXT RIGHT, to be placed on general service signs which do not have exit numbers included on the sign. Figure 2E-38 has been added as an example. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this section.

Also in this section, paragraph 4, GUIDANCE is added that recommends the distances to services should be shown on general service signs when the service is more than 2 km (1 mile) from the interchange.

Additionally, paragraph 4a(1), is changed based on comments from the Ohio Department of Transportation and logo organizations in 9 States, which suggested that the FHWA delete tire repair from the list of criteria for selecting and installing general service signs for gas stations. The FHWA is adopting this modification since the majority of businesses offering gas today, no longer provide tire repair services. This same change applies to Section 2F.01, paragraph 8, item 1.

Also in this section, paragraph 4b(4), 4c(4), and 4f(3) are revised to add “modern sanitary facilities” as a criteria for food, lodging, and camping services.

Additionally, paragraph 4b(2) modifies the number of days that a food service, selected for general service sign, is open. The 1988 MUTCD showed 7 days per week, and the new edition states at least 6 days per week. This amendment also applies to Section 2F.01, paragraph 9, item D(b). This revision to the MUTCD is made in order to comply with the requirement of Federal law, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 214, which was effective on June 9, 1998. There were no docket comments on this section.

Also in this section, a STANDARD is added which requires that general service signs that are operated on a seasonal basis shall be removed or covered during periods when the service is not available. This amendment reduces the chance of road users mistakenly leaving their routes only to find that the particular service is closed. The FHWA received no comments on this section.

91. In Section 2E.57 Radio Information Signing, paragraph 1 allows State and local highway agencies the OPTION of using a word message Radio-Traffic Information (D12-4) sign in conjunction with traffic management systems. The FHWA received no comments on this section.

Also in this section, paragraph 2 establishes three as the maximum number of frequencies shown on each Radio-Traffic Information sign. The FHWA did not receive any comments on this change.

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts 2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.

92. Since the FHWA has combined chapters 2E and 2F of the 1988 MUTCD into one chapter, the new chapter for Specific Service Signs is Chapter 2F (formerly Chapter 2G in the 1988 MUTCD). There were no docket comments on combining Chapters 2E and 2F.

93. In Section 2F.01 Eligibility, paragraph 4 adopts Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a STANDARD for selecting eligible specific services. This is consistent with the requirements of other Federal programs. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

Also in this section, paragraphs 5 and 12 adopt a new specific service sign category for attraction signs. This increases the Specific Service Sign categories to five (gas, food, lodging, camping, and attractions). There were no docket comments on this section.

Additionally, paragraph 7 is changed from that proposal in the NPA as a result of docket comments received from six logo organizations suggesting that the FHWA modify the discussion for Specific Service Sign eligibility to include the following text shown in bold: “If facilities for the specific service being considered are not available within the 5 km (3 miles) limit or choose not to participate in the program, then the limit of eligibility may be extended in 5 km (3 miles) increments until one or more facilities for the services being considered choose to participate or until 25 km (15 miles) are reached, whichever comes first.” The FHWA is adopting this modification to give states more flexibility in the selection of eligible specific service facilities

In paragraph 9, item (A)(1), under GUIDANCE, the FHWA adds “alternative fuels” to the list of qualification criteria for specific service signs. No comments were received regarding this change.

94. The FHWA received 11 comments from representatives of various State logo organizations requesting that FHWA modify the proposed Section 2F.02 Application, paragraph 2, to allow for up to three types of services to be displayed on a specific service sign (example: gas, food, and lodging). The FHWA is adopting three types of specific services on one sign as the maximum along with the requirement that if three types of services are allowed on one sign, then the logo panels (businesses) shall be limited to two for each type of service. This would allow for a total of six logo panels per sign which is consistent with the STANDARD in Section 2F.04 Number and Size of Logos and Signs. The FHWA believes that this change will give the states more flexibility in the selection of specific service facilities.

Also in this section under the STANDARD statement, paragraph 2 is changed to delete the requirement for a separate sign for each type of specific service at freeway and expressway interchanges.

95. In Section 2F.04 Number and Size of Logos and Signs, the proposed paragraph 2 allowed a maximum of six logo panels for any specific service category shown on a sign. Based on 12 docket comments received from State Departments of Transportation, representatives of various motorist information services, and logo organizations, the FHWA is also amending paragraph 2 to allow a maximum of four logo panels for one of the two service types on the same sign (example: four food logo panels and two lodging logo panels). When four logo panels for one type of service are installed on a sign, the maximum number of logo panels still shall not exceed six. The FHWA believes that this change will give the States more flexibility in the selection of specific service facilities.

Also in this section, the maximum logo panel size for expressway intersections is increased from 900 mm × 600 mm (36 inches × 24 inches) to 1500 mm × 900 mm (60 inches × 36 inches). There were no docket comments on this section.

96. In Section 2F.05 Size of Lettering, Table II-5, “Letter and Numeral Sizes for Specific Service Signs” as shown in the 1988 MUTCD is deleted. In the 1988 MUTCD, a category 1 size was included for use on expressways where access to crossroads was provided by at-grade intersections. The FHWA is deleting Table II-5 and the related categories. The FHWA is adopting a minimum height of 250 mm (10 inches) for all letters and numerals on specific service signs on freeways and expressways, and 150 mm (6 inches) for signs on conventional roads and ramps. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is effective immediately for new sign installations.

97. In Section 2F.06 Signs at Interchanges, the requirement for a separate Specific Service sign for each type of services is deleted.

Also in this section, paragraph 2 adds GUIDANCE that specific service ramp signs should be spaced at least 30 m (100 feet) from the exit gore sign, from each other, and from the ramp terminal. The FHWA received no docket comments on this section.

98. In Section 2F.07 Single-Exit Interchanges, paragraph 4 adds an OPTION to install the exit number panel on top of specific service signs on the freeway or expressway for the single-exit interchanges. There were no docket comments on this section.

99. In Section 2F.09 Signs at Intersections, paragraph 3 deletes the reference to a specific distance at which logo panels should not be displayed because they are visible from the roadway or highway. The FHWA believes that the State and local highway agencies should determine the acceptable visibility limits. The FHWA did not receive any comments regarding this change.

Also in this section, paragraph 6 adds an OPTION to install the NEXT RIGHT (LEFT) and other directional information below the logos on the specific service signs.

The FHWA received 52 comments from 10 commenters concerning Chapter 2G. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999.

100. In Section 2G.01 Purpose and Application, the FHWA is defining the term “tourist-oriented directional sign.” The term “panel” is also defined in Chapter 1. The FHWA received no comments on the definition.

One commenter suggested defining “immediate area” in the first STANDARD or allowing the States to provide a definition in their State policy. The FHWA believes that defining “immediate area” is best addressed through State policy (Section 2G.07), and is revising that section to include a definition as an element of the policy.

A State transportation department pointed out that requiring the use of tourist-oriented directional signs in place of specific service signing may conflict with State statutes. To avoid conflict with State statutes, the FHWA believes that this text would be better addressed as GUIDANCE, and is changing the section accordingly. This change gives the needed encouragement without eliminating the flexibility that some agencies might need.

Three State transportation departments suggested uniform placement of tourist-oriented directional signs regardless of whether the facility and its on-premise advertising signs are readily visible or not from the roadway. Additionally, one State transportation department recommended a definition of “readily visible from the roadway” be included. The FHWA believes that for positive guidance, tourist-oriented directional signs should be installed regardless of whether or not the facility and/or its on-premise advertising is readily visible from the roadway. The FHWA has deleted this text from the GUIDANCE.

101. In Section 2G.02 Design, the FHWA is including a STANDARD that each tourist-oriented directional panel shall display only one eligible business, service or activity facility. None of the commenters disagreed with this change and the American Traffic Safety Services Association, Inc. commented favorably.

102. In Section 2G.03 Style and Size of Lettering, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) recommended deleting the text related to the legend on rural roads. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and removed it from the GUIDANCE. Using smaller letters on “less important rural roads” is not helpful to the unfamiliar road user. One commenter suggested that text referencing the “Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs and Pavement Markings”  7 be added. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and is adding it to the STANDARD, since it is the design standard for letters, numerals, and spacing.

103. In Section 2G.04 Arrangement and Size of Signs, the FHWA limits the size of a tourist-oriented directional sign to a maximum of 1.8m (6 ft.). One commenter suggested that the limitation should be on the number of panels on the sign, rather than the physical size of the sign. The FHWA agrees that there should be a limitation on the number of panels as well as the size of the sign. A maximum sign size is specified to prevent visual obstructions.

Also, under the first GUIDANCE in Section 2G.04, it was proposed in the NPA that no more than three panels should be displayed on each sign. One State transportation department objected. The FHWA agrees because this may place an undue burden for sign removal on those jurisdictions with existing signs. Therefore, the FHWA will continue to allow display of four panels per tourist-oriented directional sign.

Several comments were received on the text regarding installation of intersection approach signs. The text in the first GUIDANCE contained conflicting language. The FHWA is revising the first GUIDANCE to allow for a straight ahead approach sign and is clarifying that intersection approach signs for tourist-oriented destinations to the left, right and straight ahead should be installed in advance of the intersection and that no more than four panels should be displayed on each sign. The FHWA is adding other clarifications to the text, based on the comments received, including: (1) Recommending the order in which signs should be installed; for consistency signs should appear in the following order: (a) The left turn sign should be located farthest from the intersection, (b) then the right turn sign, and (c) the straight ahead sign located closest to the intersection; (2) recommending that when there are multiple destinations in the same direction that the panels on the tourist-oriented directional sign should be displayed in order based on the destination's distance from the intersection (the closest destination should appear first); (3) clarifying that the left, right or straight ahead turn panels may be combined on the same sign, but that the straight ahead sign should not be combined with a sign displaying both the left and right turn destinations, and (4) allowing signs for destinations in the straight ahead direction when there are signs for destinations in either the left or right direction.

104. In Section 2G.05 Advance Signs, the first OPTION regarding installation of advance signs in the NPA has been moved to the GUIDANCE statement in Section 2G.07 State Policy, which is a more appropriate location. Also, in Section 2G.05, the FHWA is including GUIDANCE to clarify that in cases where directional word messages such as NEXT RIGHT (LEFT) or AHEAD are appropriate for application, this additional information may be added to the 1.8m (6 ft) maximum sign height. None of the commenters disagreed with this change and the American Traffic Safety Services Association, Inc., commented in support of the change. One State transportation department objected to installation of the directional word messages above the business identification panels. The destinations on tourist-oriented directional signs and where to turn are priority information; therefore, the directional word message action should be shown first. There were several comments requesting sign dimensions be shown on the figures. The dimensions were inadvertently left off the figures in the NPA and the dimensions in the 1988 Manual will be used with the appropriate metric conversions.

105. Section 2G.06 Sign Locations, require that the location of all other traffic control devices shall take precedence over the location of tourist-oriented directional signs, and that tourist-oriented directional signs shall not obstruct the road user's view of other traffic control devices. None of the commenters disagreed with this change.

The NCUTCD and two other commenters objected to the exception, found in Section 2G.06 GUIDANCE, for the location of the straight ahead sign. The FHWA agrees and has deleted the exception. For positive guidance, a straight ahead business should have a sign in advance of the intersection.

Also in this section, one commenter suggested that the location of and distance between signs, for the advance signs was excessive. The FHWA believes that locating advance signs 1 km ( 1/2 mi) from the intersection is an appropriate distance, but agrees that the spacing between signs is excessive and has reduced the distance to 152 m (500 ft). Since this is a shorter minimum distance than the current MUTCD, this will not have any impact on State or local highway agencies.

One commenter objected to the phrase in the OPTION paragraph. The Executive Order referenced in the comment was revoked by Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and effective on November 2, 1999. However, the FHWA is modifying this paragraph by deleting “but within the right-of-way” to be consistent with other parts of the Manual which do not reference right-of-way limits for sign placement.

106. In Section 2G.07 State Policy, the FHWA proposed to add the equal opportunity criteria of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241) as a STANDARD condition for destinations to be eligible for tourist-oriented directional signs. One State transportation department and one State chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers objected to including civil rights requirements in the Manual, while the American Traffic Safety Services Association, Inc. supported their inclusion. The FHWA disagrees with these objections to include the civil rights requirements. This paragraph was added as a condition for destinations eligible for tourist-oriented directional signs, because most Federal programs require compliance with Title VI regulations. This paragraph is consistent with Chapter 2F Specific Service Signs.

Also in Section 2G.07, the GUIDANCE statement is revised to include a definition of “immediate area” for the area to be served. “Immediate Area” was used in the first STANDARD of Section 2G.01 Purpose and Application, of the NPA. In order to give the State highway agencies more flexibility, the FHWA believes that the definition is best addressed through State policy.

The FHWA received 46 comments from eight commenters concerning Chapter 2H. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999.

As proposed in the NPA, the FHWA is modifying the following recreational and cultural interest signs to improve their visibility and make the sign design less complex: Litter Container (RG-130), Ranger Station (RG-170), Picnic Area (RM-120), Laundry (RA-060), Sleeping Shelter (RA-110) and Interpretative Trail (RL-130).

Also, the FHWA is adopting the following Forest Service symbols  8 and will include them in the “Standard Highway Signs” book  9 Motor Home (RM-200), Group Picnicking (RM-220), Group Camping (RM-210), Dog (RG-240), Seaplane (RG-260), Family Restroom (RA-150), Helicopter (RA-160), All-Terrain Vehicle (RL-170), Archer (RL-190), Hang Glider (RL-210), Fishing Pier (RW-160), Hand Launch for Boating (RW-170), Kayak (RW-190), Wind Surf (RW-210) and Chairlift for Skiing (RS-100). The FHWA has only included new or modified symbol signs in the revised manual.

None of the commenters disagreed with the modified or adopted symbols. However, one State transportation department recommended that we mandate that titles be used with the signs. The FHWA disagrees with the need for this clarification because Section 2A.13 permits an education plate to accompany a symbol sign that is not readily recognizable by the public.

107. In Section 2H.01 Scope, use of recreational and cultural interest signs is expanded by providing the OPTION of using these symbols on directional guide signs found on expressways and freeways. The American Traffic Safety Services Association supported the expanded use of these symbols. Two commenters opposed the expanded use of the symbols suggesting the possible overloading of road users with too many signs along freeways, especially in congested areas. The FHWA disagrees because the GUIDANCE in Section 2H.02 encourages agencies to adopt policies for recreational and cultural interest signing, and cautions agencies not to use them where they might be confused with other traffic control signs.

Also, in this section, the STANDARD paragraph has been removed. General signing requirements are covered in Chapter 2A.

108. In Section 2H.02 Application of Recreational and Cultural Interest Signs, one State transportation department recommended removing the text related to nonvehicular events and amenities. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation because the Manual has jurisdiction over the signing that leads road users to nonvehicular events and amenities such as trails, structures, and facilities.

109. In Section 2H.04 General Design Requirements for Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Signs, several commenters recommended including examples of the usage and series categories and one State chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers opposed the removal of the Category and Usage Chart. The FHWA agrees with this last recommendation. A Category Chart is included. This chart is similar to the Category and Usage Chart included in the 1988 Manual, except the road/type usage information has been removed. It is no longer appropriate to specify usage since the use of the symbols has been expanded to include both conventional roads and expressways and freeways.

Also, in Section 2H.04, the FHWA has removed the SUPPORT paragraph proposed in the NPA. The use of recreational and cultural interest symbol signs is discussed in Section 2H.01.

110. In Section 2H.05 Symbol Sign Sizes, sign information is discussed in paragraph format. The FHWA received no negative comments regarding the removal of Table II-7, “Sign Sizes.” The American Traffic Safety Services Association recommended that a minimum size of 750 mm × 750 mm (30 in × 30 in) be used for expressway and freeway installation to ensure legibility and increase comprehension commensurate with today's higher speeds and complexities evidenced on these types of roadways. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation. The recommended expressway/freeway sign size text is contained in GUIDANCE.

111. In Section 2H.06 Use of Educational Plaques, GUIDANCE recommends that, if used, the educational plaque should be the same width as the symbol sign. None of the commenters disagreed with this change.

112. One State transportation department recommended deleting the proposed Section 2H.08 Color Format. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and has removed Section 2H.08 as referenced in the NPA, because sign design requirements, including color, are addressed in Section 2H.04.

113. In Section 2H.08 Placement of Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 2H.09), one State transportation department suggested that the exception to the vertical mounting height for symbol signs on low speed, low volume roads is not necessary and may cause some signs to be installed so that they are no longer crashworthy. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation to eliminate the exception. Chapter 2A of the Manual requires all signs within the clear zone to be mounted at 2.1 m (7 ft) in urban areas, and at 1.5m (5 ft) in rural areas.

114. In Section 2H.09 Destination Guide Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 2H.10), one State transportation department recommended that both the recreational and cultural interest area symbol signs and destination guide signs be white on brown. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation. The GUIDANCE lists the order of preference for use of shapes and colors. While rectangular, white on green is listed first, States may use rectangular, white on brown. This provides maximum flexibility to the States.

Also, in this section, one State transportation department recommended deleting the requirement that advance guide signs and exit direction signs have the white on green color combination where there are destinations other than a recreational or cultural interest area. The FHWA disagrees with the recommendation. Guide signs shall be white on green, except white on brown may be used when solely recreational or cultural interest area destinations are shown.

Several commenters recommended removal of the trapezoidal shape. The FHWA is retaining the GUIDANCE that allows use of the trapezoidal shape. However, the FHWA will consider this recommendation in the future after further study.

115. The FHWA received no objections to deleting Sections 2H.10 through 2H.15 of the 1988 Manual, as proposed in the NPA. These sections gave a general description of the categories of recreation and cultural interest symbol signs.

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts 2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.

116. With the renumbering of Part 2, Chapter 2J is changed to Chapter 2I. The FHWA received a recommendation from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to change the title of Chapter 2I from “Signing for Civil Defense” to “Emergency Management Signing.” The FHWA has adopted this new title and has deleted reference to civil defense because the more prevalent concerns today are from emergency traffic management situations such as natural disasters and chemical warfare threats.

117. In Section 2I.02 Design of Emergency Management Signs, the Civil Defense symbol is deleted from the evacuation route sign. The evacuation route plaque number is changed from CD-1 to EM-1. All of the emergency management sign numbers discussed in Chapter 2I now have the EM prefix.

118. In Section 2I.04 Area Closed Sign, the reference to “dangerous radiological or biological contamination” is deleted since the AREA CLOSED sign is not limited to these type areas but can be used for other emergencies such as natural disasters. The AREA CLOSED sign number is EM-2.

119. In Section 2I.05, the title is changed from “Traffic Regulation Post Sign” to “Traffic Control Point Sign.” The FHWA believes that this is a more appropriate title since these signs are used at checkpoint locations where traffic is stopped and controlled by designated officials.

The sign number for the TRAFFIC CONTROL POINT sign is EM-3.

120. In Section 2I.07, the title is changed to include both a ROAD USE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THRU TRAFFIC (EM-5) sign or an AREA USE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THRU TRAFFIC (EM-5a) sign. There may be situations when the area use permit may be the more appropriate signing message. Therefore, the FHWA has included the OPTION to use this message as an alternative.

121. In Section 2I.09, the title is changed to “Shelter Directional Sign” which is a more general heading than “Fallout Shelter Directional Sign.” The Shelter Directional Signs may carry one of the following legends: EMERGENCY SHELTER, HURRICANE SHELTER, FALLOUT SHELTER, or CHEMICAL SHELTER.

122. In Section 2A.03, the FHWA has deleted the OPTION sentence which indicated that traffic engineering judgment or studies may show that signs would be unnecessary at certain locations. By definition, the purpose of engineering judgment and studies is to determine whether or not a sign or other traffic control device is needed.

123. In Section 2A.18, paragraph 1, the FHWA has decided not to adopt the proposal to require the minimum mounting height of 2.1 m (7 feet) for all signs. This decision is based on crash-worthiness research results  10 which did not justify universal application of the increased mounting height. It is also based on docket comments received from 8 county highway agencies which opposed the increased mounting height for all signs. The minimum mounting height will remain at 5 feet for rural areas and 7 feet for urban areas where parking and other obstructions to view may occur. This minimum mounting height does not preclude the installation of signs at higher heights.

124. In Section 2E.29, paragraph 2, the FHWA has decided not to adopt the amendment to increase the vertical dimension of the exit number sign panel from 600 mm (24 inches) to 750 mm (30 inches). The FHWA received comments from North Carolina, Missouri and Minnesota Departments of Transportation expressing disagreement with the idea of increasing the vertical dimension of the exit number sign panel to 30 inches, particularly in the absence of specific data to indicate that the 24 inch panels are not performing adequately. The FHWA agrees and will revisit as part of a future research study.

The FHWA received 800 comments from 47 commenters concerning Parts 2A, 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2I. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 63 FR 31950 on June 11, 1998.

125. In Section 2F.02, paragraph 4, the FHWA has decided not to limit the use of the ATTRACTION to expressways and freeways since in paragraph 5, the other specific service categories may be used on any class of highway.

The FHWA received 352 comments from 40 commenters concerning Part 3 under docket number 96-47 (in mid-1997 this docket was scanned into the U.S. Dockets Facility as FHWA-1997-2295 and may be retrieved electronically with this number). Also, the FHWA received 181 comments from 27 commenters in response to docket number 99-6575. The two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at 62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, and at 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion.

126. Chapter A, General Principles, of the 1988 MUTCD is renamed “General.” Several sections within this chapter are more appropriately relocated to Chapter B as follows: (a) Section 3A.08 is moved to 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchanges, (b) Section 3A.09 is moved to 3B.15 Transverse Markings, and (c) Section 3A.10 is moved to Section 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines. Section 3A.07 of the 1988 MUTCD discussed the different types of yellow and white lines. This discussion was reorganized and moved to Section 3B. Each type of line in Section 3A.07 is now discussed in the first six sections of Section 3B, which is organized by color of longitudinal lines.

127. In Section 3A.06 Widths and Patterns of Longitudinal Line Markings, the FHWA is adding to the OPTION statement a recommended ratio for line segments and gaps for “dotted lines.” One comment was received from a State highway agency recommending that a definition be provided for the wording “or longer gaps.” Since the proposed text did not contain any guidance on the maximum spacing of the longer gaps, the FHWA is including an OPTION statement recommending a maximum ratio of 1:3 for line segments and gaps, respectively, for dotted lines.

128. The section headings on Chapter B, Pavement and Curb Markings, are renamed and reorganized to read as follows:

129. Sections 3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line Pavement Markings and Warrants, 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Markings, and 3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings (all referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.01); Section 3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and Right Edge Line Markings and Warrants, and Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings (both referenced in the NPA as 3B.02); and 3B.06 Edge Line Markings, and 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines (both referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.03), are modified to include the provisions of the amendments on standards for center line and edge line markings published as a Final Rule at 65 FR 9 on January 3, 2000. There were 96 commenters on the proposed amendments to include the center line and edge line Final Rule into the proposed Section 3B.01 and 3B.03. Sixty-one commenters opposed the proposed text, and 45 of these commenters suggested two technical corrections. Most of the comments opposed to the proposed text were concerned about the warrants for center line and edge line markings which required edge lines on rural roads before center lines. The FHWA agreed with the comments and changed the text to make the warrants for rural center line and edge line markings consistent. Many commenters suggested a technical correction concerning the ADT values in the proposed warrants. The discussion in the final amendments of January 3, 2000 on center line and edge line markings (65 FR 9, January 3, 2000) stated that “The FHWA believes that jurisdictions should be aware of the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and widths of the major roadways now specified in the standards and that the ADTs are an estimate that can be performed at a jurisdiction's judgment.” The FHWA agrees with the commenters and included a SUPPORT statement “If a traffic count is not available, the ADTs described in this section can be estimates that are based on engineering judgment.” Many comments included suggestions that were addressed in the final rule published on January 3, 2000. Many commenters also suggested revisions lowering the STANDARDS, which cannot be accepted because it would adversely impact safety to the traveling public.

As noted in the final amendments for center line and edge line pavement markings, dated January 3, 2000, the compliance date for these sections is January 3, 2003 or when pavement lane markings are replaced within an established pavement marking program, or when the highway is resurfaced or reconstructed, whichever date is earlier.

130. Section 3B.01 Yellow Longitudinal Line and Left Edge Line Pavement Markings and Warrants, now contains GUIDANCE on the speed definition in the warrants for no-passing zones at curves which was in the 1988 MUTCD in Section 3B.05. The text in the NPA for these warrants reduced the minimum passing sight distances because it was based on posted or statutory speed limits as shown in Table 3B-1. In the 1988 MUTCD, the minimum passing sight distances were determined based on the greater of the off-peak 85th percentile speed or the posted speed limits. The FHWA received eight comments that opposed deleting the use of the 85th percentile speed because using the 85th percentile improves safety. Accordingly, the FHWA is returning to the use of the 85th percentile speed because it agrees that this improves safety.

131. In Section 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Pavement Markings and Warrants, the FHWA is changing the first paragraph of the first OPTION to be consistent with Section 8B.16 Pavement Markings, the STANDARD for highway-rail grade crossings. The STANDARD will read: “No-passing zone markings shall be used on approaches to highway-rail grade crossings in conformance with Section 8B.16 Pavement Markings.” The second paragraph of the first OPTION will remain an OPTION and will read: “No-passing zone markings may also be used at other locations where the prohibition of passing is appropriate.”

132. In Section 3B.04 White Longitudinal Line and Right Edge Line Markings and Warrants, and Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings (referenced in the NPA as 3B.02 White Longitudinal Line Markings), 11 commenters had concerns about specific wording in the text or details about the figures as proposed and suggested technical or editorial revisions to make them acceptable. Of these suggested revisions, five concerned lane lines within a crosswalk. The FHWA agrees with these comments and the lines are removed from within the crosswalks.

After the NPA was published at 62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, the FHWA noted that text requiring lane line markings was inadvertently omitted from the proposed amendment and was included in the updated text published 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999. One comment, received in response to the second NPA, noted that the standard for lane lines on Interstate highways was omitted from the proposed text and that it should be reinserted. The FHWA agrees and is including this STANDARD in the final text.

133. The FHWA is revising the STANDARD for the extension of dotted lines through intersections in Section 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections (referenced in the NPA as 3B.04 Extensions Through Intersections or Interchanges). One commenter was opposed to the color being the color of the line extended, rather than the color of the line to which it is extended. One commenter was opposed to the width of the marking being the same as the line it extends. The FHWA believes that the proposed text is appropriate because it will provide the most consistent application of dotted line extensions. The FHWA will retain the proposed text in the final version.

Also in this section, paragraph 2, the FHWA added Figure 3B-11, sheet 2 of 2, Typical Pavement Marking Applications (referenced in the NPA as Figure 3-9a, Typical Pavement Marking Applications), to show more examples of the use of dotted line markings in intersections. This figure was in response to older driver research that shows that motorists benefit by having these additional markings. The FHWA received nine, mostly editorial, comments. Two commenters suggested reducing the GUIDANCE to an OPTION which would reduce safety. One commenter suggested adding curvature of the roadway to the list of examples where line extensions should be considered. The FHWA agrees to include “* * * on curved roadways * * *” into the final text.

134. In Section 3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other Markings, and 3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for Pavement Markings (both referenced in the NPA as 3B.07 Raised Pavement Markers, Retroreflective and Non-Retroreflective), the FHWA received 21 comments about raised pavement markers. Two comments, from northern States, opposed the minimum height of the raised pavement marker. Since the height definition is SUPPORT and not a STANDARD or GUIDANCE, the proposed text is retained. Seven of the comments proposed technical changes to the spacing of the raised pavement markers. Since the space of raised pavement markers is GUIDANCE, the proposed text will be retained until research indicates that different spacing would provide better information to road users. The FHWA received no comments, however, about the color of raised pavement markers conforming to the color of the pavement marking where they are placed. The FHWA received five comments about the use of raised pavement markers at right edge lines. Two comments addressed the use of raised pavement markers in construction work zones. One comment recommended that raised pavement markers be permitted, and another opposed the use of raised pavement markers on right edge lines. Several commenters agreed that raised pavement markers should not be used on right edge lines. Since there is not a consensus on using raised pavement markers on right edge lines at this time, the FHWA is retaining the proposed GUIDANCE that raised pavement parkers should not supplement right edge line markings.

135. In Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.09), paragraphs 2, 4, and 6, the FHWA is adding an optional “Yield Line” marking for use where it is important to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to yield. Figure 3-24, Typical Yield Line Layout, provides an illustration of these markings. The FHWA received ten comments. Five of the comments opposed the proposal and indicated that the proposed markings were not needed. The FHWA believes that improved public awareness of yield line markings will lead to consistency in the use of the stop line marking for mandatory stops and the yield line when a yield is the appropriate action. Since these markings would be optional, State and local highway agencies would not be required to use them.

Also in this section, the FHWA received one comment which suggested that the wording of the following phrase be clarified as follows: “Where through lanes of traffic approaching an intersection become the mandatory turn lanes.” The FHWA is incorporating the above underlined words into the final text to clarify the sentence. The FHWA received two comments suggesting reductions to the use of blue markings to designate parking spaces for persons with disabilities. The FHWA believes the suggestions would reduce the visibility of the markings and is adopting the text as proposed in the NPA.

136. In Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.12), third OPTION, paragraph 5, the FHWA is adding a “Yield Ahead” triangle symbol marking for optional use in advance of intersections where approaching traffic will encounter a YIELD sign. Figure 3B-24 provides an illustration of these markings. The FHWA received 14 comments, of which only four opposed the proposal. Three comments addressed text and figures that had not changed from the 1988 MUTCD and that will be retained. Only one comment opposed the proposed yield ahead markings. The FHWA is adopting the yield ahead marking as proposed in the NPA.

Also in Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings, second SUPPORT, the second paragraph states: “Where crossroad channelization of ramp geometry do not make wrong-way movements physically difficult, guidance to a potential wrong-way road user can be provided by placing a lane-use arrow * * *.” The FHWA is changing this SUPPORT to GUIDANCE to be consistent with the GUIDANCE, paragraph B, in Part 2E.50 Wrong-Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps which states “Where crossroad channelization or ramp geometrics do not make wrong-way movements difficult, a lane-use arrow should be placed in each lane * * *.”

137. In Section 3B.22 Preferential Lane Word and Symbol Markings (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.13), the FHWA is differentiating between types of preferential lanes. The diamond pavement marking symbol is for exclusive HOV lane use. In situations where a preferential lane is not an HOV lane, then the word message (Bus, Taxi, etc.) or symbol (Bike, etc.) for the type of traffic allowed would be used. The FHWA received three comments that suggested editorial changes to this section, and it has made one minor editorial change to the second STANDARD, paragraph 2, to include a reference to Figure 3B-25.

138. In Section 3B.21 Curb Markings (referenced in the NPA as 3B.15), paragraph 5, the FHWA is adding paved median noses to the locations that should have retroreflective solid yellow markings. This addition is made in response to recommendations for older drivers  11 , which shows the benefits of having these additional markings. The FHWA received two comments which suggested that the text be changed to an OPTION, and one technical comment that suggested that additional guidance be included on the placement of the markings. The FHWA is adopting the text as proposed in the NPA because the FHWA believes that retroreflective markings should be placed to increase the visibility of paved median noses. The FHWA also believes that the portion of the paved median nose that should be marked should be left to each jurisdiction's judgment.

139. In Section 3B.23 Preferential Lane Longitudinal Markings for Motorized Vehicle (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.16), is added to provide the STANDARDS for longitudinal lane line markings for physically and non-physically separated, reversible and non-reversible, and left and right side concurrent flow preferential lanes for motorized vehicles. Table 3B-2 was added to list the standards in a tabular format. Figure 3B-25 provides an illustration of these markings.

Furthermore, GUIDANCE is added on marking the neutral area between a preferential use lane and a regular traffic lane, when the distance between them is greater than 1.2 m (4 ft). The FHWA received eight comments concerning this section. Several comments were about showing a double yellow centerline on the figures. The FHWA believes that since the figures clearly show that there is a median, the use of a double yellow centerline is not appropriate. One commenter suggested using a double white dashed line for the right lane line on concurrent flow HOV lanes. Another commenter suggested that the double wide white longitudinal lines should be double normal white longitudinal lines. The FHWA believes that the longitudinal lines shown in the proposed figures provide reasonable options which will promote uniformity of markings to the road users. The FHWA is retaining the proposed figures in the final version.

140. Section 3B.24 Markings for Roundabouts (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.17), Figure 3B-26 (referenced in the NPA as Figure 3-26), Typical Markings for Roundabouts with One Lane, and Figure 3B-27, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with Two Lanes, (referenced in the NPA as Figure 3-27), are added to incorporate standard markings for roundabouts to the MUTCD. The FHWA disagrees with one commenter opposed to this section which suggested a reduction from GUIDANCE to OPTION. The FHWA did receive 14 editorial comments on the text and figures and they are incorporated as minor modifications to the text.

141. Section 3B.25 Markings for Other Circular Intersections (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.18), is added to incorporate optional standard markings for other circular intersections including rotaries, traffic circles, and residential traffic calming designs. Figures 3B-26, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with One Lane, and 3B-27, Typical Markings for Roundabouts with Two Lanes, provides illustrations of typical markings for other circular intersections. The FHWA received one comment about the placement of the crosswalk in advance of the yield line in the figures. The FHWA believes that the location of the crosswalk in advance of the yield lines as shown in the figures provides the shortest and safest location for pedestrians to walk. The FHWA will retain the proposed figures in the final version.

142. Section 3B.26 Speed Hump Markings (referenced in the NPA as Section 3B.19), is added to provide pavement markings to assist motorists in identifying the locations of speed humps. Figures 3B-28, Pavement Markings for Speed Humps, and 3B-29, Pavement Markings for Speed Humps, provide illustrations of typical speed hump markings. The FHWA received 11 comments, none of which opposed having speed hump markings. Most, however, were concerned that the markings were excessive and would be difficult to maintain. The FHWA is retaining the text and figures because these markings are optional and the FHWA is not convinced that the alternate markings are better.

143. Section 3B.27 Advance Speed Hump Markings (referenced in the NPA as 3B.20), is added to provide pavement markings to assist motorists in identifying the locations of speed humps. Figure 3B-30, Advance Warning Markings for Speed Humps, provides an illustration of typical advance warning markings for speed humps. The FHWA received four comments. One commenter stated that the advance warning for speed hump markings should not be used because they are similar in appearance to stop lines. The FHWA disagrees with the commenter, because the advance warning markings are a series of transverse bars located in advance of a speed hump, which would not be found at an intersection where a stop bar is located.

144. In Section 3F.02 Channelizing Devices, the FHWA received seven comments on a new STANDARD that states that the color of cones and tube markers used outside construction and maintenance areas shall be the same as the pavement markings. Three comments had concerns about allowing orange as the color of a tubular marker on a white or yellow lane line. One commenter wanted the STANDARD to be more restrictive by excluding orange as a substitute color. Another commenter called the STANDARD difficult to achieve and enforce in practice. The third commenter suggested orange as the predominant color, with permanently mounted tubular markers to be only white. The FHWA will adopt the proposed wording because orange is a universal color for cones and tubular markers. While it is preferable that the color of cones in non-work zones match the color of line that they supplement or are substituted for, the FHWA believes motorists will understand if orange cones or tubular markers are used.

The FHWA received 842 comments from 135 commenters concerning Part 4. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at 62 FR 691 on January 6, 1997, and 64 FR 73612 on December 30, 1999.

145. For Section 4A.02 Definitions Relating to Highway Traffic Signals, the FHWA reviewed the text of Part 4 to ensure all terms that need to be explained are defined in this section and that all terms in the definitions are used in the text. Based on this review, the FHWA is adding new definitions for the terms “signal housing” and “walk interval” because these terms are used in the text of Part 4, but were never defined. The definition for “signal installation” is removed because it is no longer used in the text. This section is significantly expanded from four definitions to seventy-one definitions that are being used throughout Part 4.

146. In Section 4C.01 through 4C.09 concerning warrants, the number of warrants are increased from seven, as noted in the 1997 NPA, to eight (The School Crossing Warrant, which was moved to Section 7D.04 in the 1997 NPA, is being moved back to Chapter 4C to keep all the signal warrants together, eliminating the need for the reader to use two parts of the MUTCD. See 62 FR 693). The FHWA did not receive any comments opposed to moving the school crossing warrant from Part 7 back to Part 4.

147. The FHWA inadvertently omitted Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing, from the previous NPAs. Section 4C.06 is essentially the same as the 1988 version, with some minor exceptions. The exceptions are:

(1) A new SUPPORT paragraph explaining that the School Crossing Warrant is to be applied in instances where school children crossing the street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic signal. The FHWA is deleting this paragraph from Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, and moving it to Section 4C.06.

(2) To be more consistent with the other STANDARD wording used in the MUTCD, the statement concerning the need for a traffic control signal is changed from “may be warranted when * * *” to “shall be considered when * * *.”

(3) To match the other chapters in Part 4, the FHWA is adding a new STANDARD paragraph which will indicate that, before deciding to install a traffic control signal, “consideration shall be given to implementation of other remedial measures.”

(4) To match Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, a new STANDARD paragraph is added to Warrant 5 which will state that the School Crossing warrant shall not be applied within 300 feet of another traffic signal, unless the proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.

(5) Due to a desire to assist in the reduction of traffic congestion, a new GUIDANCE paragraph is added that states, “If installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.”

(6) The use of pedestrian detectors is changed from an OPTION to a GUIDANCE to match Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume. The GUIDANCE now reads, “At an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated and should include pedestrian detectors.”

(7) The FHWA is deleting the sentence from the 1988 MUTCD which reads, “Special police supervision and/or enforcement should be provided for a new non-intersection installation” because the effectiveness of this depends on the local traffic characteristics and should be determined by local engineering judgment.

148. In Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications, the FHWA is retaining the phrase “Unless otherwise determined by law” in the first paragraph under STANDARD. Two comments were received, both in opposition to the proposal to delete this phrase in the January 1997 NPA on the basis that the proposed deletion would infringe on the States' rights to have additional or different meaning of signal indications. The FHWA withdrew this proposal in the December 1999 NPA and put the phrase back in this section. The FHWA encourages States and local entities to achieve uniform rules of the road that are in accord with chapter 11, Rules of the Road, in the “Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) and Model Traffic Ordinance,” 1992, published by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Alexandria, Virginia. 12

149. In Sections 4D.04, 4D.05, 4D.06, 4D.07, 4D.08, 4D.11, and 4D.16, the text concerned with the use of red arrows is being retained in the MUTCD. In the 1999 NPA, it was suggested that this text be removed for reasons of motorist confusion as to the meaning of the red arrow indication. Comments were received from 8 States, 21 cities, 6 counties, 8 consultants, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), and 9 others that objected to the removal of the red arrow from the MUTCD. Most of the comments pointed out that the red arrow has now been in widespread use for many years, and drivers, including older drivers, understand its meaning and are using it safely. It was pointed out that the research summarized in the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook”  13 was conducted shortly after the red arrow was introduced; therefore, the education of the motoring public, especially older drivers, was still underway. Most of the comments also pointed out that significant funds would need to be spent to convert to circular red displays for protected only mode left-turn phases, including adding LEFT TURN SIGNAL signs on span wires and mast arms, some of which might not be able to handle the additional load. No comments supporting the removal of red arrows were received. The FHWA agrees with these comments and has decided to retain the text concerned with the use of red arrows in the MUTCD.

150. In Section 4D.05 Application of Steady Signal Indications, three commenters questioned the accuracy of item d(3) of the NPA that states a YELLOW ARROW can be terminated by a CIRCULAR YELLOW. The FHWA agrees that this statement is inaccurate and is removing the phrase, “a CIRCULAR YELLOW indication or” from this section. Also, the revised text is now part of item E4 of this section.

151. In Section 4D.06 Application of Steady Signal Indications For Left Turns, the 1999 NPA proposed to add a new STANDARD statement and a new OPTION statement in an attempt to favor the leading protected only mode left-turn phases over the other types of left-turn phasing based on the “Older Driver Highway Design Handbook.” Comments were received from ten cities, one county, the NCUTCD, and three others that objected to the inclusion of these paragraphs in the MUTCD. Most of the comments mentioned that the decision as to the type of left-turn phasing to use should be made on a case-by-case basis and that a proliferation of leading protected only mode left-turn phases would not be in the interest of anyone, including older drivers. Because there are many legitimate uses for both protected/permissive and lagging left-turn phases, the FHWA is replacing these two paragraphs with an OPTION paragraph regarding special consideration for older drivers in the design of left-turn phasing.

Also in this section, four cities asked that clarifying text allowing the use of “Dallas phasing” be added in compliance with the1993 interpretation request by the Texas Department of Transportation. “Dallas phasing” provides for a protected/permissive (five section) signal to display a circular green for the left turn approach while the through movement approach signal displays a circular red. The FHWA interpreted the MUTCD “to permit “Dallas phasing” if the five section display for the left turn is shielded, hooded, louvered, positioned or designed so that the left turn signal displays are not seen by the through movement driver.” Based on these requests, the FHWA is adding a second means of providing protected/permissive mode left-turn phasing. This second means involves an exclusive left-turn signal face instead of a shared left-turn signal face. Therefore, “Dallas phasing” is allowed in both of the above described situations.

152. In Section 4D.12 Flashing Operation of Traffic Control Signals, the FHWA received one comment that additional information needs to be added to clarify the procedures for changing from flashing to steady mode. The FHWA is adding language to this section describing the process of changing from either a yellow-red or a red-red flashing mode to a steady mode. This additional language is needed to ensure a safe transition from a flashing to a steady (stop-and-go) operation.

Another commenter stated that a new GUIDANCE paragraph needs to be added to Section 4D.12 to recommend that, for any steady red clearance interval provided during the change from red-red flashing mode to steady (stop-and-go) mode, the minimum duration should be 6 seconds. The FHWA agrees and is adding a new GUIDANCE paragraph to this section.

153. In Section 4D.13 Preemption and Priority Control of Traffic Control Signals, one comment was received that revisions need to be made regarding the shortening or omission of pedestrian intervals in priority control sequences. The FHWA is adding text to this section's STANDARD paragraph to clarify that pedestrian intervals may be omitted if the entire vehicular phase is also omitted.

154. In Section 4D.15, the FHWA is changing the title from “Number and Location of Signal Faces by Approach” to “Size, Number, and Location of Signal Faces by Approach.” This was done based one comment suggesting the information on the size of signal faces is more appropriately contained in this section than as shown in Section 4D.16 Number and Arrangement of Sections in Signal Faces, in the 1999 NPA.

Also in Section 4D.15, a new paragraph D is added to the first GUIDANCE statement listing a fourth recommended reason to use 12 inch signals. This new GUIDANCE is to use 12 inch signals at locations where there is a significant percentage of elderly drivers. Comments received from two States, two cities, the NCUTCD, and one consultant objected to the inclusion of this paragraph in the SUPPORT statement of Section 4D.16 as proposed in the 1999 NPA. Most of the commenters stated that the STANDARDS and GUIDANCE found elsewhere in Chapter 4D adequately address the decision as to which size lenses to use. The FHWA decided the new paragraph D was a more appropriate location for this information.

155. In Section 4D.16, the FHWA is changing the title from “Number and Arrangement of Sections in Signal Faces” to “Number and Arrangement of Signal Sections in Vehicular Traffic Control Signal Faces.” This was done based on a comment suggesting the need to clarify that this section deals only with vehicular traffic control signals. This allows items a, c, and d to be deleted from the proposed STANDARD paragraph since they are not vehicular traffic control signals.

156. In Section 4D.17 Visibility, Shielding, and Positioning of Signal Faces, the FHWA has removed the first sentence of the last SUPPORT paragraph listed in the 1999 NPA. Comments received from three States, three cities, the NCUTCD, and two consultants objected to the inclusion of this sentence describing the size of the backplates in the MUTCD. Most of the comments noted that the use of backplates three times the diameter of the signal would cause infrastructure problems because of inordinate size; a backplate of that size is not needed.

Also in this section and in response to a comment, proposed paragraph 3 in the 1999 NPA under the STANDARD statement, and proposed paragraph 5 in the 1999 NPA under the GUIDANCE statement, are removed because it is not appropriate to aim signal heads in a direction that does not serve drivers at the stop line. Most agencies provide an additional signal face if one is needed to attract the attention of drivers approaching a signal on a curved approach. The FHWA is also adding an OPTION to address the possibility of providing an additional head on the approach.

In response to another comment, the FHWA is adding a GUIDANCE paragraph to Section 4D.17 about the preferability of using visors instead of louvers. The FHWA is adding this paragraph since visors are preferred because they do not diminish light output.

157. In Section 4D.20 Temporary Traffic Control Signals (referenced in the NPA as Section 4D.19), the FHWA is revising the text to remove references to portable traffic control signals (except for the definition of a portable traffic control signal) because a portable traffic control signal is a temporary traffic control signal that is easily moved. Also, the STANDARDS, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT in this section deal with both portable and temporary. The FHWA is changing the definition of a portable traffic control signal to, “A portable traffic control signal shall be defined as a temporary traffic control signal that is designed so that is can be easily transported and reused at different locations.”

158. The FHWA is adding two new sections, 4E.06 Accessible Pedestrian Signals and 4E.08 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors, to provide GUIDANCE and STANDARDS for accessible pedestrian signals and accessible pedestrian signal detectors. Text related to accessible pedestrian signals has also been added in various other sections, such as Sections 4C.01 and 4D.03. This was done in response to numerous comments that were received, including 65 comments from the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board and 16 comments from The Environmental Access Committee of Division Nine of the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 4 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing installations of accessible pedestrian signals and accessible pedestrian signal detectors to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is effective immediately for new installations.

159. In Section 4E.06 Accessible Pedestrian Signals, based on a comment received, the FHWA is adding a phrase to the third STANDARD statement that requires the walk tone to have a faster repetition rate only if the walk tone is similar to the tone for the pushbutton locator tone.

160. In Section 4E.07 Pedestrian Detectors, the FHWA is changing the title proposed in the 1999 NPA as “Pedestrian Signal Timing” to “Pedestrian Detectors,” because the new title accurately reflects information contained in this section. The FHWA is also including a paragraph 8, GUIDANCE, and a paragraph 10, STANDARD, that are part of the 1988 MUTCD, but were inadvertently left out of the NPAs. The GUIDANCE paragraph reads, “If used, special purpose pushbuttons (to be operated only by authorized persons) should include a housing capable of being locked to prevent access by the general public.” The STANDARD paragraph reads, “If used, a pilot light or other means of indication installed with a pedestrian pushbutton shall not be illuminated until actuation. Once it is actuated, it shall remain illuminated until the pedestrian's green or WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) signal indication is displayed.”

161. In Section 4E.08 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors, a new OPTION paragraph is added that allows the use of pushbutton locator tones with accessible pedestrian signals. This is being added to clarify the rest of the text in Section 4E.08.

Also, based on a comment, the FHWA is adding a new phrase to the second STANDARD statement to read, “When used, pushbutton locator tones shall be easily locatable, shall have a duration of 0.15 seconds or less, and shall repeat at one-second intervals.”

162. In Section 4E.09 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases, two commenters objected to the change in the duration of the pedestrian clearance time being calculated to the far side of the traveled way. The 1988 MUTCD text states the duration of the pedestrian clearance time should be calculated to the center of the farthest traveled lane. The proposed change would have added time to flashing DON'T WALK intervals and would have forced many agencies to retime their traffic signal systems. This would place an undue burden on many local and State jurisdictions. The FHWA agrees with the two commenters and is reverting to the 1988 MUTCD text that refers to the center of the farthest traveled lane.

Also in this section another commenter stated that a change to the second paragraph in the STANDARD statement is needed to make the sentence accurate. It is only the first portion of the pedestrian clearance time that is comprised of the flashing DON'T WALK interval. The FHWA is revising the text to make it clear that the yellow and red intervals can also be included in the pedestrian clearance time.

163. In Section 4F.02 Design of Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control Signals, the FHWA has changed paragraph 5 from GUIDANCE to STANDARD to be consistent with the STANDARD statement in Section 2B.40 Traffic Signal Signs. The STANDARD in Section 2B.40 states that the R10-13 sign, bearing the legend EMERGENCY SIGNAL, shall be used with the emergency-vehicle traffic control signal on each major street approach. In addition, a sentence will be added to Section 4F.02, paragraph 5, to be consistent with the GUIDANCE in Section 2B.40 that the EMERGENCY SIGNAL sign be mounted adjacent to an overhead emergency-vehicle traffic control signal.

164. In Section 4K.03 Warning Beacon, the FHWA is adding the phrase “except for SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT sign beacons” to the second paragraph in the STANDARD statement to clarify that SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT sign beacons are allowed to be included within the border of the sign to be consistent with Section 7B.10.

165. In Section 4L.02 In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks, a commenter suggested that the third paragraph in the OPTION statement proposed in the 1999 NPA, concerned with the placement of the lights in the center of lanes and on lane lines be relocated to the GUIDANCE statement. In order to provide clear recommendations to agencies regarding the proper installation of these new optional devices, the FHWA is making this change and also adding the phrase “away from the normal tire track paths” at the end of the paragraph. The paragraph now reads as follows: “If used, In-Roadway Warning Lights should be installed in the center of each travel lane, at the centerline of the roadway, at each edge of the roadway or parking lanes, or at suitable locations away from the normal tire track paths.

The FHWA received 231 comments from 23 commenters concerning Part 5. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 71358 on December 21, 1999.

166. A new Part 5 is added to the MUTCD entitled, “Traffic Control Devices for Low Volume Roads.” After consideration, the NPA's proposed title, “Low Volume Rural Roads” was revised because these roads are not exclusive to rural areas.

167. In Section 5A.01 Function, 16 commenters requested that the maximum volume on low volume roads be raised from the proposed 200 AADT (average annual daily traffic) to 400 AADT. The FHWA agrees and is adopting a maximum volume of 400 AADT because AASHTO uses 400 vehicles per day as the breakpoint for low-volume roads in its current version of “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets.”  14 Also, recent on-going research conducted by Midwest Research Institute as part of NCHRP 20-7(108) indicates that those geometric design guidelines applicable to roads with AADTs of 400 vehicles per day or less differ from geometric design guidelines normally applied to higher volume. This change provides State and local jurisdictions with more flexibility when installing and maintaining traffic control devices to provide for efficient and safe traffic flow within their fiscal restraints.

Also in this section, several commenters requested a change in the proposed definition of low volume roads which restricted these roads to those facilities outside the corporate limits of communities. The FHWA is changing the language to describe low volume roads as facilities lying outside built-up areas of cities, towns and communities. The FHWA is adopting this definition to avoid confusion caused by varying corporate limit treatments practiced by State and local agencies.

Additionally in Section 5A.01, in the STANDARD statement, the classification scheme for low volume roads is being changed to paved and unpaved. This modification replaces the proposed Categories 1 through 3 in this section and throughout Part 5. Several commenters expressed problems with applications of the proposed categories, and the FHWA agrees that the classification change will eliminate most of the confusion.

168. In Section 5A.03 Design, in the second paragraph of the STANDARD statement, proposed Table 5A-1 is mentioned. The heading for this table is changed to “Minimum Sign Sizes for Low Volume Roads,” and a number of signs are eliminated that typically would not be used on low volume roads. The following signs have been removed from Part 5:

The above changes to Table 5A-1 do not prevent a jurisdiction from using the above signs or any other sign in the MUTCD that is appropriate for its roadways.

Also in Table 5A-1, the FHWA has changed minimum sizes for several signs so that all signs in the table are consistent with dimensions published in other parts of the MUTCD. This will not impose any additional requirement to State and local highway agencies. Minimums for the following signs have been modified:

The above changes to Table 5A-1 will have no impact on State or local jurisdictions.

169. In Section 5C.09 Motorized Traffic and Crossing Signs (W-11 Series and W8-6), the proposed section on seasonal or temporary signing is changed from a STANDARD statement to GUIDANCE statement in the final MUTCD amendment. Although it is good practice to remove or cover such signs when the activities described will not be occurring for an extended period of time, it is not imperative for low volume roads.

170. In Section 5E.02 Center Line Markings, the FHWA has eliminated the proposed OPTION stating a minimum width for roadways with center line markings. There are no definitive guidelines, supported by research, for such minimums on low volume roads.

171. In Section 5E.05 Object Markers, the FHWA has changed the proposed first phrase of the GUIDANCE statement to an OPTION statement for when to consider to use TYPE III barricades to mark the end of a low volume road. Commenters pointed out that such barriers are typically not warranted for low volume roads and should not be recommended as a general treatment for such facilities.The FHWA agrees because no supporting data has been presented showing that the barricades are needed on all low volume roads.

172. In Section 5F.05 Pavement Markings, the proposed STANDARD statement is removed as it only directed readers to Sections 8B.9 and 8B.10. The proposed SUPPORT statement is changed to GUIDANCE on when to install pavement markings in advance of highway-rail grade crossings on low-volume roads. The FHWA agrees with the commenters who suggested that on a paved road with center line markings, the unfamiliar motorist would have no knowledge of the low AADT and, therefore, would expect highway-rail grade crossing markings. These markings should increase safety at these highway-rail grade crossings. This should have no impact on State or local jurisdictions because this is not a change from the current MUTCD requirements.

The FHWA received 2875 comments from 56 commenters concerning Part 6. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 73606 on December 30, 1999.

173. The title of Part 6 is changed from “Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls for Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility, and Incident Management Operations” to “Temporary Traffic Control” as indicated in the NPA.

174. In Chapter 6A General, the FHWA has moved a portion of the STANDARD from the end of Chapter 6B Fundamental Principles because it applies to all Chapters of Part 6. The moved portion reads, “There shall be adequate statutory authority for the implementation and enforcement of needed traffic regulations, parking controls, speed zoning, and incident management. Such statutes shall provide sufficient flexibility in the application of traffic control to meet the needs of changing conditions in the temporary traffic control zone.”

175. In Chapter 6B Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic Control, paragraph 3b of the GUIDANCE statement, a number of commenters suggested the need to indicate conditions under which permanent traffic control devices do not have to be removed in a temporary traffic control zone. The FHWA is retaining language similar to that used in the 1988 MUTCD, Revision 3 dated September 3, 1993, which clearly indicated which traffic control devices to be used. The last sentence reads, “However, in intermediate-term stationary, short term and mobile operations where visible permanent devices are inconsistent with intended travel paths, devices that highlight or emphasize the appropriate path should be used.”

In Chapter 6B Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic Control, paragraph 4c of the GUIDANCE statement, a commenter suggested the need to describe ambient conditions factors. The FHWA is retaining the modifiers “road user volumes, light, and weather” from the 1988 Edition of MUTCD, Revision 3 to describe ambient conditions. This change should have no impact on State or local highway agencies since the FHWA is retaining the current MUTCD requirements.

176. In Section 6C.01 Temporary Traffic Control Plans, the FHWA is adding a fourth GUIDANCE statement to provide additional information on minimizing the need to reduce speed limits in temporary traffic control zones. It reads, “Reduced speed limits should be used only in the specific portion of the temporary traffic control zone where the above conditions or restrictive features are present; however, frequent changes in speed limit should be avoided. A traffic control plan should be designed so that vehicles can safely travel through the temporary traffic control zone with a speed limit reduction of no more than 10 mph. A reduction of more than 10 mph in the speed limit should be used only when required by restrictive features in the temporary traffic control zone. Where restrictive features justify a speed reduction of more than 10 mph, additional driver notification should be provided. The speed limit should be stepped down in advance of the location requiring the lowest speed, and additional warning should be used.” This change will have no economic impact on State and local highway agencies. However, roadway safety and efficiency should increase because research has shown that speed reductions should be no more than a 10 mph increment.

177. A new Section 6C.02 Temporary Traffic Control Zones, is added to the MUTCD to better define temporary traffic control zones. It contains only general information concerned with temporary traffic control zones. A new definition for “temporary traffic control zones” includes a work area or an incident area. In the NPA this text was included as part of the Section 6C-2 Components of Temporary Traffic Control Zones. This change is not adding any new requirements for State or local jurisdictions.

178. Section 6C.03 Components of Temporary Traffic Control Zones (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.2) includes information concerned exclusively with the four components of a temporary traffic control zone, i.e., the advance warning area, the transition area, the activity area, and the termination area. The examples of a work zone area and an incident area are removed from this Section 6C.2 and relocated to Chapter 6G which is concerned with types of temporary traffic control zone activities. In the NPA, the text of Sections 6C.02 and 6C.03 was combined into just one section and four commenters suggested that the NPA language was too cumbersome and recommended that the text be split. The FHWA agrees and has made the change to clarify the text.

179. In Section 6C.06 Activity Area (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.5), Table 6-1, “Guidelines for Length of Minimum Advance Working Area,” was incorrectly titled and located in the NPA. The FHWA is renumbering the table as Table 6E-1, is moving the table to Section 6E.05 Flagger Stations, and re-titling it “Distance of Flagger Station in Advance of Work Space.” This table provides information on the distance a flagger should be in advance of the work area based on the speed of approaching traffic. The information in the table has nothing to do with Activity Areas and lengths of minimum advance working areas.

180. In Section 6C.07 Termination Area (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.6), the FHWA has changed the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD as the statement is a definition, and definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS.

The GUIDANCE statement dealing with END ROAD WORK signs has been moved to Section 6F.49 END ROAD WORK Sign (G20-2) as it most appropriately goes in the section that describes the sign and not in this section discussing a termination area.

In place of the GUIDANCE statement, an OPTION statement has been added to this section indicating the need for an END ROAD WORK, speed limit, or other sign to indicate to road users that they may resume normal operations. The above changes were made to be consistent throughout the MUTCD and to add guidance to optimize road user performance in temporary traffic control zones.

181. In Section 6C.08 Tapers (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.7), in the sixth proposed SUPPORT statement regarding a One-Lane, Two-Way Taper, the last sentence, “Typically, traffic is controlled by a flagger or temporary traffic control signal.” Seven commenters suggested the need that this and other sections be more specific on providing temporary traffic control for two-way traffic using a one-lane roadway. The FHWA agrees and has changed the text accordingly. The text is being revised and relocated to the sixth GUIDANCE statement in the MUTCD because anywhere two-way traffic is moved in a one-lane of a road, there needs to be some type of temporary traffic control to maintain traffic flow and safety. The GUIDANCE statement reads, “Traffic should be controlled by a flagger or temporary traffic signal (if sight distance is limited), or a STOP or a YIELD sign.” This change should have no impact on State and local jurisdictions while improving road user safety by providing positive direction to road users during temporary traffic control operations.

182. In Section 6C.10 One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control (referenced in the NPA as Section 6C.9), the FHWA is changing the first proposed GUIDANCE statement indicating the need for some type of temporary traffic control for one-lane, two-way traffic flow operations to a STANDARD. Anywhere two-way traffic is moved in a one-lane of a road, there needs to be some type of temporary traffic control to maintain traffic flow and safety. This change should have no impact on State and local jurisdictions while improving road user safety by providing positive direction to road users during temporary traffic control operations.

183. In Section 6D.01 Pedestrian Considerations, the proposed third STANDARD statement is changed to a GUIDANCE statement because there are no acceptable measures to judge “when pedestrians are especially vulnerable to impact by errant vehicles, all pedestrians shall be separated and protected by a temporary barrier.” Three commenters recommended this change and the FHWA agrees. The fifth GUIDANCE statement now reads, “When pedestrian and motor vehicle paths are rerouted to a closer proximity to each other, consideration should be given to separating them with a temporary barrier.” This will provide more flexibility to State and local highway agencies and, thereby, reducing the impacts on them.

Also in this section, the first STANDARD statement is relocated from the end of proposed Section 6D.2 Worker Considerations, because it is applicable to both pedestrian and worker safety. These changes were based on comments from the NCUTCD as well as other commenters. The FHWA agrees and it now reads, “the various traffic control provisions for pedestrian and worker safety set forth in this Part shall be applied by qualified persons after appropriate evaluation and engineering judgment.”

184. In Section 6E.01 Qualifications for Flaggers, the FHWA is changing the first proposed SUPPORT sentence to a STANDARD as the statement is a definition and definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS.

185. In Section 6E.03 Hand-Signaling Devices, the proposed statement “When flashing lights are used at night, the illumination shall not blind drivers.” was questioned by three commenters because there no acceptable measures to determine this. The FHWA agrees and has removed the statement from the second GUIDANCE of this section.

In the second STANDARD the word “red” was inadvertently left out of the NPA. The STANDARD now reads, “When used at nighttime, flags shall be retroreflectorized red.” This is identical wording to that in the 1988 Edition of MUTCD, Revision 3. This should have no impact on State or local governments since the FHWA is retaining the current requirements.

186. In Section 6F.01 Types of Devices, the proposed first SUPPORT statement is changed to a GUIDANCE statement and revised to read, “The design and application of temporary traffic control devices used in temporary traffic control zones should consider the needs of all road users.” This change is made to emphasize the need to consider all road users, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and railroads as well as motor vehicle traffic, when designing and applying traffic control devices.

187. In Section 6F.02 General Characteristics of Signs, the FHWA has added an OPTION statement which retains language from the 1988 MUTCD, Revision 3 dated September 3, 1993, that allows the use of non-black on orange pedestrian warning signs in work zones. The new OPTION statement reads, “In order to maintain the systematic use of yellow or fluorescent yellow-green background for pedestrian, bicycle, and school warning signs in a jurisdiction, the yellow or fluorescent yellow-green background for pedestrian, bicycle, and school warning signs may be used in temporary traffic control zones.” This OPTION is modified to include the fluorescent yellow-green color because many jurisdictions have adopted this optional warning sign color for pedestrian, bicyclist and school facilities and locations. In addition, this provides more flexibility to State and local highway agencies to increase awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists in temporary traffic control zones.

188. In Section 6F.03 Sign Placement, the FHWA is adding the GUIDANCE statement, “Neither portable nor permanent sign supports should be located on sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or areas designated for pedestrian or bicycle traffic.” The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety commented on this omission that would allow the placement of temporary traffic control signs to hinder the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists. The FHWA agrees and this should not have an impact on State or local governments.

189. In Section 6F.09 LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY Signs (R-11-3, R11-4), the FHWA is changing the first STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE statement to provide more flexibility in signing in rural communities where the temporary traffic control zone may be within a residential block and not kilometers (miles) down a road without intersections.

190. Section 6F.15 Warning Sign Function (as referenced in the NPA) has been combined with Section 6F.16 Warning Sign Design and Application (as referenced in the NPA), and renamed, “Section 6F.15 Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application.” These changes were made because the FHWA agrees with the comments from six commenters that the material in the two sections really belongs together.

Also in Section 6F.15, the STANDARD statement and GUIDANCE statement proposed in the NPA concerning flexible signs are removed as these items are adequately addressed in Section 6F.02 Signs, and in Section 6F.03 Sign Placement. Five commenters indicated this overlap.

191. Section 6F.16 Position of Advance Warning Sign (referenced as Section 6F.17 in the NPA) has been combined with Section 6F.18 Other Advance Warning Signs (as referenced in the NPA) and Section 6F.19 Application of Warning Signs for Maintenance, Minor Road Work, and Utility Sites (as referenced in the NPA) and has been moved and named, “Section 6F.16 Position of Advance Warning Signs.” These changes were made because the FHWA agrees with the five commenters that indicated the overlap in technical issues in these three sections.

192. In Section 6F.20 ONE LANE ROAD Sign (W20-4) (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.23), the FHWA has moved to Section 6C.10 One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control, the proposed GUIDANCE statement concerning how to temporarily control two-way traffic on a one-lane roadway. This GUIDANCE statement has been reworded to read, “If traffic on the affected one-lane roadway is not visible from one end to the other, then flagging procedures or traffic signal control should be used to control alternate traffic flows.” This GUIDANCE has been clarified and is more appropriately placed in Section 6C.10.

193. In Section 6F.28 EXIT OPEN, EXIT CLOSED signs (E5-2) (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.31), one commenter suggested that a complementary sign, EXIT CLOSED (E5-2a), was inadvertently left out of the NPA. The FHWA agrees and has included this sign in this section as an OPTION. In temporary traffic control work zones in and around interchanges it is important to provide current traveler information such as notifying motorists that an exit is, in fact, closed. This change provides for uniformity for signs used at exit locations and will have no impact on State or local highway agencies.

194. In Section 6F.52 Portable Changeable Message Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.55), the FHWA is changing the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD statement as the statement is a definition and definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS. The statement is revised to read, “Portable Changeable Message Signs are traffic control devices with the flexibility to display a variety of messages. Each message consists of either one or two phases, only. Typically, a phase consists of up to three lines of eight characters per line.”

195. In Section 6F.53 ARROW PANELS (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.56), the FHWA is changing the first proposed SUPPORT statement in the NPA to a STANDARD as the statement is a definition and definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS.

Additionally, since arrow panels are similar to portable changeable message signs, the FHWA is adding a GUIDANCE statement to Section 6F.53 identical to the GUIDANCE statement for locating and providing protection for portable changeable message signs. The GUIDANCE statement reads, “An arrow panel should be placed on the shoulder of the roadway or, if practical, further from the traveled lane. It should be delineated with retroreflective temporary traffic control devices or when within the clear zone, shielded with a barrier or crash cushion. When an arrow panel is not being used, it should be removed; if not removed, shielded; or if the previously two options are not feasible, delineated with retroreflective temporary traffic control devices.” This GUIDANCE will maintain traffic flow efficiency and improve safety.

196. In Section 6F.55 Channelizing Devices, Subsection A General (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.58), the FHWA changed the second paragraph of the second SUPPORT paragraph in the NPA “Standard designs of channelizing devices are shown in Figure 6F-06,” to a STANDARD at the beginning of the section. The design dimensions in Figure 6F-06 have always been STANDARDS. One commenter pointed out this discrepancy.

Also in this section, in Subsection D Vertical Panels, the requirement that vertical “panel strip widths shall be 150 mm (6 in), except where panel heights are less than 900 mm (36 in), then 100 mm (4 in) stripes may be used” was inadvertently reversed in the NPA. The FHWA has corrected this wording making it similar to that in the1988 MUTCD, Revision 3 dated September 3, 1993. Since this change is keeping the current requirements of the MUTCD, there is no impact on State or local highway agencies.

Additionally, Subsection G Direction Indicator Barricade, the FHWA has changed the proposed first GUIDANCE statement to an OPTION statement to read: “The Direction Indicator Barricade may be used in tapers, transitions, and other areas where specific directional guidance to motorists is necessary.” Direction indicator barricades do not have to always be used in these situations. This provides State and local highway agencies more flexibility in selecting temporary traffic control devices for work zones.

Subsection J Opposing Traffic Lane Divider, is more appropriately relocated to this section from proposed Section 6F.67 as referenced in the NPA because it provides directional guidance to motorists.

197. In Section 6F.69 Lighting Devices, Subsection D(4) Warning Lights (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.60), the FHWA relocated to this Subsection a GUIDANCE statement from Figure TA-34 and Figure TA-36. The GUIDANCE statement reads, “The maximum spacing for warning lights should be identical to the channelizing device spacing requirements.” This GUIDANCE is applicable to any situation where lighting devices are used, not just in the two typical application Figures.

The FHWA is moving the SUPPORT statement (referenced in the NPA as Subsection D(4) Flashing Beacon (Vehicle Mounted)) “During normal daytime maintenance operations, the functions of flashing warning beacons are adequately provided by rotating lights or strobe lights on a maintenance vehicle” to the beginning of the Section. Furthermore, the FHWA is retaining a STANDARD statement, “The use of the vehicle hazard warning lights shall not be used instead of rotating lights or strobe lights” and an OPTION statement, “The vehicle hazard warning lights may only supplement the rotating lights or strobe lights” to clarify the intent of ‘rotating lights or strobe lights’. The STANDARD and OPTION statements were added to MUTCD in January 9, 1997, and were inadvertently omitted in the NPA.

198. In Section 6F.74 Temporary Traffic Control Signals (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.61), the first GUIDANCE is revised to read: “When temporary traffic control signals are used, conflict monitors that are typically used in traditional traffic signal operations should be used.” This was corrected because the spacing between traffic signal installations, as proposed in the NPA, has nothing to do with the need for a conflict monitor. This has no impact on State or local governments since the FHWA is retaining existing MUTCD requirements.

199. In Section 6F.75 Temporary Traffic Barriers (referenced in the NPA as Section 6F.62), the FHWA is changing a GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD statement. The statement reads, “In order to mitigate the effect of striking the end of a temporary traffic barrier, the end shall be installed in accordance with the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide by flaring until the end is outside the acceptable clear zone or by providing with crashworthy end treatments.” This requirement should improve safety because research indicates that there are no acceptable methods of providing the required degree of safety other than flaring or providing crashworthy end treatments.

200. In Section 6F.76 Crash Cushions, Subsection B Truck-Mounted Attenuators, the second proposed SUPPORT statement is changed to a STANDARD in the new MUTCD as the statement is a definition of “truck-mounted attenuators” and definitions are by their very nature STANDARDS.

Under this same Subsection B, the proposed the first STANDARD statement is changed to a GUIDANCE statement in the new MUTCD to provide more flexibility in the spacing of the shadow vehicle behind the workers and their work vehicles.

201. In Section 6G.05 Work Outside of Shoulder (referenced in the NPA as Section 6G.6), the FHWA has changed to an OPTION statement the GUIDANCE statement which reads, “Where the activity is spread out over a distance of more than 3.2 km (2 mi), the sign should be repeated every 1.6 km (1 mi).” Since the work being performed is outside the shoulder, there may not always be a need to install signs that frequently. This will provide more flexibility to State and local highway agencies.

202. In Section 6G.06 Work on the Shoulder With No Encroachment (referenced as Section 6G.7, Subsection B in the NPA), the GUIDANCE statement “Truck off-tracking should be considered when determining whether the minimum lane width of 3 m (10 ft) is adequate” from Figure TA-43 has been added to Section 6G.06 Subsection B Minor Encroachment on the Traveled Way. It is in this Subsection that minimum lane widths are discussed and accounting for truck off-tracking is applicable to all temporary traffic control zones with minimum lane widths.

203. Section 6G.08 Work Within the Median, is added to the new MUTCD as a separate section. It was referenced in the NPA as the GUIDANCE statement under Section 6G.3. The new section reads, “If work in the median of a divided highway is within 4.5 m (15 ft) from the edge of the traveled way for either direction of travel, traffic control should be used through the use of advance warning signs and channelization devices.” This change provides for improved road user safety in temporary traffic control work zones.

204. In Section 6G.10 Work Within Traveled Way of Urban Streets, Subsection B. Bicyclists, the FHWA is changing a proposed SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD statement to ensure that bicyclists are accommodated during a temporary traffic control zone. The statement reads, “If the work area affects the movement of bicyclists, adequate access to the roadway, bicycle path, or shared-use path shall be provided. For details on controlling bicycle traffic, see Part 9.” This change should provide for increased safety for bicyclist in temporary traffic control work zones and has no significant impact on State or local government agencies.

205. In Section 6G.18 Work in the Vicinity of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, a new GUIDANCE statement is added to read, “Early coordination with the railroad company should occur before work starts.” As it is important that all users of the work area are aware of temporary changes and for continued highway-rail grade crossing operations. This early coordination should improve road user operations and improve safety while having no economic impact on State and local highway agencies.

The FHWA received 156 comments from 20 commenters concerning Part 7. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 62 FR 64324 on December 5, 1997.

206. In Section 7A.01, the Typical School Route Plan Map (Figure 7A-1) is revised as proposed in the NPA. Several comments were received suggesting modifications to the figure. The figure has been enlarged and printed in color to better identify signals and stop signs. The arrow heads reflecting direction of travel are enlarged. Traffic control devices are added where intersecting streets meet the collector road.

The FHWA received no negative comments regarding our proposal to include middle and high schools in the development plans for school routes. This amendment to Section 7A.01, paragraph 6, adopts the following GUIDANCE: “A school route plan for each school serving elementary to high school students should be prepared * * *.”

The amendment to Section 7A.01, paragraph 8, requires the traffic control devices in the school plan to be related to the volume and speed of vehicle traffic, street width, and the number and age of children using the crossing. There were no negative comments to this change.

207. The FHWA received two comments that objected to the deletion of the text found in Sections 7A.05 through 7A.10, 7B.01 through 7B.04, 7B.07, and 7B.08 of the 1988 MUTCD. The FHWA believes that retaining this text is not necessary with the new layout of the MUTCD, because this information is provided in other sections.

208. Six comments were received on the proposed text in Section 7B.01 which found the sign size terminology confusing. Based on these comments, the heading is revised to read “Size of School Signs.” The FHWA received no other negative comments regarding this amendment. However, there were three comments regarding Table 7B-1 “Size of School Area Signs and Plaques.” One comment suggested using “centimeters” to display metric units. In a final rule published at 64 FR 33751 on June 24, 1999, the FHWA adopted two American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials publications for the design of traffic control devices for use on all roads open to public travel. These documents use millimeters, not “centimeters.” Another comment noted that the proposed table was not in agreement with the “Standard Highway Signs” book. 15 This book is also undergoing revision. The FHWA will ensure that there are no conflicts with sign sizes shown in both publications. There was a comment regarding the “older driver” issue of sign size and legibility. The FHWA believes this issue is adequately covered in the OPTION statement that reads: “The ‘special' sized sign may be used for applications that require increased emphasis, improved recognition or increased legibility.”

Based on comments received, the OPTION statement has been expanded to define where the minimum size signs are used.

209. A new section, 7B.07 Sign Color for School Warning Signs, is added that addresses the optional use of the color fluorescent yellow green for school warning signs. This amendment was adopted in a final rule published at 63 FR 33546 on June 19, 1998. The FHWA has included this OPTION for use of the color and GUIDANCE that addresses the systematic approach for the use of this color.

210. Section 7B.08 School Advance Warning Sign (S1-1) was referenced in the NPA as Section 7B.07 School Advance Warning Sign (S1-1). Section 7B.09 School Crosswalk Warning Assembly (S1-1 with Diagonal Arrow) was referenced in the NPA as Section 7B.08 School Crosswalk Warning Sign (S2-1). The text for both sections is modified to be consistent with Section 2C.36 which discusses a new application for advance crossing and crossing signs. The FHWA is eliminating the crosswalk lines on the crossing signs since road user comprehension studies show that they generally do not know the difference between the two signs. Instead of using crosswalk lines within the sign to indicate where the actual crossing is located, the new application consists of a crossing sign with supplemental downward pointing arrow plaque to show the crossing location. For advance crossing situations, the new application will consist of a crossing sign supplemented with an “Ahead” or “XX feet” plaque. This assembly shall be used in advance of the first installation of the School Speed Limit Sign assembly. The FHWA believes that the supplemental plaques must be used (not optional) to ensure safety of children at crosswalks in school zones. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after their normal service life. This change is effective immediately for new sign installations.

211. In Section 7B.09, paragraph 4, under the GUIDANCE statement, new text recommends that an engineering study should be conducted before installing the School Crosswalk Warning Sign. No commenters objected to this amendment. However, as mentioned above, the sign is now referred to as the School Crosswalk Warning Assembly sign.

212. Section 7B.11 changes the title to “School Speed Limit Assembly (S4-1, S4-2, S4-3, S4-4, S5-1).” The FHWA is adopting this amendment based on two comments received indicating that this section describes the complete assembly of signs that make up a school speed limit sign, not just the plates. The FHWA concurs with this recommendation.

Also in Section 7B.11, one commenter suggested moving the text for the “End School Zone” (S5-2) sign to a separate section, since it is a separate sign from the others found in 7B.11. This text is moved to new Section 7B.13.

213. The title of Section 7B.12 is changed to “School Reduced Speed Ahead Assembly.” This amendment is based on one comment received suggesting changing the title to better reflect the actual sign used and illustrated. The appropriate text is also modified to reflect this change.

214. One comment was received for Section 7B.14 Parking and Stopping Signs (R7 and R8 Series), suggesting that “No Standing” signs be addressed as an example. The FHWA agrees with this suggestion and a discussion is included in paragraph 2.

Figure 7-2, “Placement of the S1-1 sign” which was shown in the 1988 MUTCD, is deleted based on three comments that pointed out that this subject is covered in Section 2C, and revised Figure 7B-1 “Typical Signing for School Area Traffic Control” that is depicted in this Final Rule. The FHWA has renumbered the remaining figures appropriately.

The revised Figure 7B-1 is corrected to reflect the assembly signs with the diagonal arrow and the “AHEAD” and “XX FEET” plaques as discussed in Sections 7B.08 and 7B.09. The figure has also been expanded to show the metric versions of the speed limit signs along with English units.

215. In Section 7C Markings, four commenters indicated conflict with the text in Part 3 Markings. The FHWA has amended the text for consistency with Part 3.

216. A GUIDANCE statement in Section 7C.04 Stop Line Markings, paragraph 1, is adopted for the placement of a Stop line in the absence of a marked crosswalk.

217. This amendment to Section 7C.06, the OPTION statement, clarifies that the “SCHOOL” word markings may extend across two lanes. (See Figure 7C-1). In the proposed text, this OPTION was inadvertently shown in the GUIDANCE discussion, and was brought to FHWA's attention by a docket comment.

218. In Chapter 7D Signals, the text is deleted and the reader is referred to Part 4 Signals, Section 4C.06 School Crossing Signal Warrant. The FHWA only received one comment in opposition to this change.

219. Chapter 7E Crossing Supervision deletes the discussion on legal authority for adult guards and student patrols since the state and local agencies are responsible for establishing laws regarding these crossing supervisors. There were no objections received on this change.

220. This amendment to Section 7E.04, paragraph 2, is based on a comment that the FHWA received indicating that mentioning “daytime, nighttime, and twilight hours,” and the reference to Section 6E.03 is redundant. The FWHA agrees and the reference to “daytime, nighttime, and twilight hours” is deleted.

The FHWA is also amending the text in the last paragraph of Section 7E.04 to include “police officers” in addition to adult guards and student patrols in wearing high-visibility retroreflective material or clothing, since police officers may be used for crossing supervision as mentioned in Section 7E.06.

221. The discussion on the use and size of the Stop paddle in Section 7E.05, paragraph 2, is changed the from OPTION to GUIDANCE. It was also suggested that the STANDARD in paragraph 3 be modified to indicate that the paddles should be “at least” 450mm (18 in). The FHWA agrees and is adopting this change. This would then allow the use of a larger paddle. Paragraph 3 is also modified to require the word “STOP” on both sides of the paddle instead of “one or both sides” since it is important for traffic to read and respond to this command from both directions of travel.

222. Section 7E.10 High Visibility Clothing has been eliminated since this text is a duplicate to that stated in Section 7E.04.

The FHWA received 412 comments from 52 commenters concerning Part 8. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. Two notices of proposed amendments (NPA) were published at 64 FR 691 on January 6, 1997 and at 64 FR 71358 on December 21, 1999.

223. In Section 8A.01 Introduction, commenters from 4 States and 1 county recommended that the last sentence in Paragraph 3 of the 1999 NPA, a SUPPORT statement, be changed to reflect that the responsibility for determining the need and selection of devices at a grade crossing should be shared with the highway agency, the regulatory agency, and the railroad company, instead of just resting with the highway agency. The FHWA and the Federal Railroad Administration have reviewed Federal law, regulations, and guidance and found that although they encourage voluntary railroad involvement (as members of diagnostic teams where Federal funds are involved) in the analysis of need for and type of protection, they do not impose on railroads the responsibility to make, or share in making, determinations of need for or selection of traffic control devices. Therefore, the FHWA is not making the suggested changes.

224. The FHWA is changing the title for Section 8A.05 from “Traffic Controls in Work Zones During Construction or Maintenance,” to “Temporary Traffic Control,” to be consistent with Part 6 of this Manual.

225. In proposed Section 8A.08 Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, a State commented that paragraph 4 in the GUIDANCE statement containing a recommendation to evaluate a private crossing by means of an engineering study to determine possible closure or the appropriate type of traffic control, be downgraded to OPTION or deleted. The FHWA has decided to delete this section on Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. The Federal Railroad Administration will be addressing the private highway-rail grade crossing issue in an upcoming safety inquiry.

226. In Section 8B.02 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1, R15-2), the FHWA has added a STANDARD statement (as proposed in the 1999 NPA) to require the placement of a strip of retroreflective white material on the back of each Crossbuck sign for the length of each blade, except where Crossbuck signs are installed back-to-back. The FHWA also added a STANDARD statement (as proposed in the 1999 NPA) to require the placement of a strip of retroreflective white material on the front and back of each Crossbuck support. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing installations to minimize any potential impact to State and local highway agencies. This change takes effect immediately for all new installations.

227. In Section 8B.03 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs, a State recommended the continued inclusion of the phrase, “Where physical conditions do not permit even a partially effective display of the sign,” under the STANDARD statement. The FHWA agrees and is including this item, which is one of the exceptions to the mandated use of the W10-1 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning sign, because it is still relevant.

In response to a comment, the FHWA is upgrading the proposed last paragraph of Section 8B.03 from GUIDANCE to STANDARD and placing it as Item A in the first paragraph of this section. This item will require the use of the W10-2, W10-3, or W10-4 sign on the parallel highway when the parallel highway is less than 100 feet from the railroad track.

In response to another commenter, the FHWA is adding the phrase “(using the speed of the turning maneuver)” to paragraph 4, STANDARD, to clarify what speed to use to determine placement distance on the parallel highway for the W10-2, W10-3, or W10-4 advance warning signs.

228. In Section 8B.06 DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS Sign, paragraph 1, GUIDANCE, the FHWA is changing “engineering study” to “engineering judgment” because engineering experience and familiarity with local traffic and geometric conditions is sufficient to determine whether the potential for vehicles stopping on tracks is high.

229. In Section 8B.12 NO SIGNAL Sign, a State, a county, and the Association of American Railroads commented on the inclusion of the NO SIGNAL sign in the MUTCD. They believe that the sign does not convey any needed information and just adds to sign clutter. The FHWA is retaining this optional sign because of comments from members of Congress and the FHWA's desire to provide warning to the road user that the crossing does not have active warning devices. In addition, no jurisdiction is required to install this sign. However, if a jurisdiction determines it is needed, this is a standard sign it may use.

230. The FHWA decided to change the sequence of sections near the end of Chapter 8B so that all signs are discussed first, then pavement markings for better continuity. The headings for Sections 8B.14, 8B.15, 8B.16, 8B.17, and 8B.18 now read as follows:

231. In Section 8B.14 Low Ground Clearance Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Sign (W10-15) (referenced in the NPA as Section 8B.16), several commenters suggested relocation of text concerning a hang-up of long wheelbase vehicles or trailers with low ground clearance from the STANDARD statement to the GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA moved the text because there are no established means for determining which crossings will create a hang-up of long wheelbase vehicles or trailers with low ground clearance.

232. In Section 8B.15 Storage Space Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 8A.7), commenters from a State and a county remarked that the W10-11 Storage Space sign does not convey the information that there is limited space beyond the crossing. The FHWA agrees that the GUIDANCE should include the use of the W10-11a word message “storage distance” sign in conjunction with the W10-11 sign. Another commenter stated that the letter size on the W10-11a sign with four lines of text on a 24” by 24” (600 mm by 600 mm) panel will not be large enough to be legible to drivers at normal highway speeds. The FHWA agrees and is including a drawing of the W10-11a as a 30″ by 36″ (750 mm by 900 mm) sign with a 4-inch letter size in the MUTCD and in the Standard Highway Signs manual. 16

Also, the FHWA is adding a new W10-11b word message storage distance sign as an OPTION to remind motorists of the storage distance space between the intersection and the tracks behind them.

233. In Section 8B.18 Dynamic Envelope Delineation (referenced in the NPA as Section 8A.6), a railroad company commented that the use of dynamic envelope delineation markings should be made an OPTION instead of GUIDANCE. There were a number of other comments about these markings being mistaken for stop lines, about how far from the tracks the markings should be placed, and the design of the markings.

One State requested that the entire section be deleted. Because of the comments and lack of real-world experience with these markings, the FHWA is changing this section to an OPTION until research on this concept is done. The FHWA would appreciate the assistance of the State and local jurisdictions that use these markings in determining their effectiveness.

234. In Section 8D.01 Introduction, the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board requested that a number of provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ) be complied with when a “pedestrian circulation route” crosses a railroad track. The FHWA is adding a new GUIDANCE paragraph that reads, “If a pedestrian route is provided, sufficient clearance from supports, posts, and gate mechanisms should be maintained for pedestrian travel.”

235. In Section 8D.03, the FHWA is changing the title from “Flashing-Light Signals, Cantilevered Supported” to “Flashing-Light Signals, Overhead Structures” because flashing-light signals are not only mounted on cantilevered supports, but also on overhead structures that extend over the entire width of the roadway.

236. In Section 8D.04 Automatic Gates, a comment was received on using medians at grade crossings that do not have four-quadrant gates. The FHWA agrees that text regarding median islands, which is adequately covered in Section 8D.05 in conjunction with four-quadrant gates, should also be covered in this section for automatic gates in general. The FHWA is adding a new OPTION paragraph to Section 8D.04 that reads, “Automatic gate installations may include median islands between opposing lanes on an approach to a highway-rail grade crossing.”

237. Several comments were received on Section 8D.04, paragraph 4 in the 1999 NPA, GUIDANCE, and Section 8D.05, paragraph 5 in the 1999 NPA, GUIDANCE, that pointed out the paragraphs had both a “shall” and a “should” in the same sentence. They requested the FHWA change the “should” to a “shall,” thus making the entire sentence a STANDARD. The FHWA agrees that the gate going back to its upright position after the train is gone be mandatory, not just recommended, and is changing this sentence to a STANDARD, and therefore the “should” to a “shall.” Those submitting comments also wanted to delete the 12-second time period, but the FHWA is retaining the 12-second time period as GUIDANCE.

238. In Section 8D.07 Traffic Control Signals at or Near Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, paragraphs 1 and 3, the FHWA is reverting to the STANDARD and OPTION language used in the 1988 MUTCD describing the use of traffic signals at highway-rail grade crossings based on comments that the proposed language was not as clear about the types of crossings where traffic signals are appropriate. Also, a comment was received suggesting that this section clarify that the preemption condition should be terminated only when the crossing gates are energized to start their upward movement. The person submitting the comment felt clarification on preemption termination would make a difference in responding to situations when a second train approaches as the preemption associated with the first train is terminating. The FHWA agrees and is inserting clarifying wording.

The FHWA received 357 comments from 79 commenters concerning Part 9. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 33802 on June 24, 1999.

239. The FHWA received no objections to deleting Sections 9A.01, 9A.04, 9A.06, 9A.07, and 9A.09. The information found in these sections can be found in Part 1 of the MUTCD.

240. In Section 9A.03, the FHWA is modifying the definitions by adopting the definitions published in the “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,” 1999 edition, AASHTO 17 . The term “Shared Roadway” has been deleted from the definitions relating to bicycle facilities since this term is not used in Part 9. The adoption of these definitions was recommended by the NCUTCD and concurred in by 65 commenters.

241. In Section 9A.05, the FHWA received comments from the NCUTCD and 65 other commenters to change the text related to the reference to the “Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance”  18 published by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinance, from a STANDARD to SUPPORT to better reflect the information included in this section. The FHWA agrees that this change is also consistent with the language found in Part 1 of the MUTCD.

242. In Section 9B.01, the FHWA received no negative comments regarding the consolidation of application and location of signs into this section. In paragraph 5 of this section, the NCUTCD and 68 other commenters suggested adding language discussing the maximum mounting height of 1.5m (5 ft) which is shown in Figure 9B-1. The FHWA agrees that this omission was an oversight and should have been stated in the text of Section 9B.01, therefore it is reviewing this section accordingly. In addition, there were no negative comments received concerning the minimum mounting height remaining 1.2m (4 ft) as reflected in Section 9B.01 paragraph 5, and Figure 9B-1.

There were several favorable comments received on Table 9B-1 “Bikeway Sign Sizes.” Several signs have been added to the table that were inadvertently left out of the NPA. The column reflecting sign sizes has been modified to read “Minimum Sign Size.” The signs have been reordered to reflect the order found in Part 2.

243. In Section 9B.02, the statement that sign sizes for shared use paths should be those shown in Table 9B-1 is changed from GUIDANCE to STANDARD since sign sizes are considered STANDARDS in other parts of the MUTCD. An OPTION statement is added to allow the use of larger size signs when appropriate.

Also in Section 9B.02, the OPTION statement regarding the use of fluorescent yellow green warning signs for “Bicycle Crossing” warning signs has been moved to Section 9B.15 Bicycle Crossing Warning Signs which is a more appropriate location for this discussion.

244. In Section 9B.03, text has been added to the OPTION statement that allows the use of larger STOP and YIELD signs when appropriate. One commenter recommended adding GUIDANCE on assignment of priority at path/roadway intersections and to recommend selection of appropriate intersection control. The FHWA is adding this language to this section.

245. In Section 9B.04 (referenced in the NPA as Section 9B.06 with the Proposed title “Preferential Bicycle Land Signs”), the title of this section is modified to read “Bicycle Lane Signs” to be consistent with the definition found in Section 9A. The word “preferential” is deleted throughout the text for consistency. Three comments were received that addressed the inconsistency between this section and Section 9C.04 Markings For Bicycle Lanes.

Two paragraphs have been added to Section 9B.04 as an OPTION statement that addresses the use of the R3-16a and R3-17a “Bicycle Lane” signs that were shown in the NPA but not addressed in the text. The R3-16a sign may be used to notify the bicyclist that the bicycle lane is ending. The R3-17a sign may be used to notify bicyclists that they may encounter parked vehicles where parking is allowed.

The proposed deletion of the preferential lane symbol (diamond) for bicycles was well received. Both the R3-16 and R3-17 signs and appropriate figures that were proposed to be modified in the NPA, and there were no objections to this change. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 5 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing markings to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This change is effective immediately for new signing installations.

246. In Section 9B.05 (referenced in the NPA as Section 9B.10 and proposed changing the title from “Lane Use Control Signs” to “Bicycle Preferential Lane-Use Control Signs”), the NCUTCD and 65 other commenters recommended changing this sign to “Begin Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes Sign” (R4-4), to better define the sign's use. A comment was received and concurred with by 66 others that the OPTION statement should be revised to reduce redundancy and to clarify the intent of this sign to be used at the beginning of right turn only lanes with parallel through bicycle lanes. The FHWA is revising this section to substitute the word “weave” for “merge” to better describe the movements at these locations.

Also, the R3-7 sign mentioned in Section 9B.10 is not specifically a bicycle-related sign, but is instead related to right turn only lanes. The FHWA agrees that this sign is adequately addressed in Part 2B and is deleted from this section.

247. In Section 9B.08 (referenced in the NPA as Section 9B.09), the title is changed from “No Parking Signs” to “No Parking Bicycle Lane Signs.” None of the commenters disagreed with this change.

One comment was received regarding the language found in the NPA Section 9B.09 and pointed out that due to variances in State and local laws affecting parking in bicycle lanes that this STANDARD text would be better addressed as GUIDANCE. The FHWA disagrees with this change in condition and is adding the text “If the installation of signs is necessary to restrict parking * * *” in order to clarify that when these signs are posted, this concept shall be followed. This addition to the text allows flexibility and has no impact on State and local jurisdictions.

248. In Section 9B.09 Bicycle Regulatory Signs (referenced in the NPA as Section 9B.05 Bicycle Restriction Signs), several commenters recommended changing the title and text to “Bicycle Regulatory Signs” since these signs are more appropriately noted as regulatory signs, not specifically as restriction signs. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and is changing the title. It was also suggested that text be added to the OPTION statement in Section 9B.09 to address the use of the R10-3 sign at locations without pedestrian signals. The FHWA agrees and is adding this OPTION. The GUIDANCE statement is modified deleting the phrase “where bicyclists are expected to dismount and walk with pedestrians while crossing the street” since the State's law or Uniform Vehicle Code may not require bicyclists to dismount.

249. The proposed amendment to Section 9B.10 recommended changing the name of this sign from “Travelpath Restriction Signs” to “Shared-Use Path Restriction Sign.” None of the commenters disagreed with this change. The proposed change is adopted.

250. A new Section 9B.11 Other Regulatory Signs is added after it was suggested that there are other regulatory signs that may be applicable to shared use paths and other bicycle facilities.

251. Several comments were received on the text regarding Intersection Warning Signs in Section 9B.13 (proposed as Section 9B.14). The text was in conflict with that found in Section 2C.33. The text found under OPTION of Section 2C.33 has been inserted in this section and modified to include “shared use paths.” Several commenters also questioned the language in the second OPTION statement that also conflicted with the GUIDANCE statement found in Section 2C.33. The FHWA has deleted this second OPTION and added language to be consistent with the GUIDANCE statement found in Section 2C.33 that states that intersection warning signs should not be used when the path approach to the intersection has a stop, yield, or signal control.

252. In Section 9B.14, 67 commenters remarked that the word “Hazardous” in the Bicycle Hazardous Condition Warning sign be changed to “Surface” since the word may be misinterpreted for the warning condition ahead in the bicycle path surface. The FHWA agrees and the sign and text is changed to read “Bicycle Surface Condition Warning Sign.”

It was also proposed in 9B.14 that the SLIPPERY WHEN WET plaque be made a supplemental plaque similar to other specific surface conditions (DIP, BUMP). The SLIPPERY WHEN WET plaque has been assigned the designation “W8-10p.”

253. The text in Section 9B.15 Bicycle Crossing Warning Signs has been replaced with text that was published in Section 2C.36 which proposed a new application for advance crossing and crossing signs. The FHWA eliminated the crosswalk lines on the crossing signs since road user's comprehension studies show that they generally do not know the difference between the two signs. Instead of using crosswalk lines within the sign to indicate where the actual crossing is located, the FHWA is requiring a crossing sign with supplemental downward pointing arrow plaque to show the crossing location. In an advance crossing situation, the FHWA is requiring using a crossing sign supplemented with an “AHEAD” or “XX FEET” plaque. The FHWA is providing a phase-in compliance period of 7 years after the effective date of this final rule for existing signs to minimize any impact on State and local highway agencies. This period will allow for replacement of existing signs after their normal service life. This change is effective immediately for new sign installation.

It was also suggested that the text in the GUIDANCE paragraph of Section 9B.15 be revised to remove the distances stated for low and high speed roadways and refer the reader to Table 2C-3 which states the guidelines for advance placement of warning signs. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation and has deleted the duplicate language.

254. In Section 9B.16, the FHWA received no negative comments on the proposed text under OPTION, published at 62 FR 1364 on January 9, 1997. The text is modified to clarify that the Share the Road word message plaque (W16-1) may be used in conjunction with the W11-1 Bicycle Crossing sign. One comment was received suggesting a picture of the sign be added. This sign has been added to the page with warning signs.

The SUPPORT paragraph found in Section 9B.20 Warning Signs is relocated to 9B.16 Other Bicycle Warning Signs in order to consolidate references to other warning signs.

255. In Section 9B.18 Bicycle Route Markers (referenced in the NPA as Section 9B.17), the FHWA is changing the GUIDANCE which recommends that the M1-8 marker should be used to establish a unique designation for a State or local bicycle route to an OPTION. The FHWA did not receive any comments opposing this proposal.

The NCUTCD recommended that the M1-9 Bicycle Route Marker that is shown in the NPA be revised to be consistent with the M1-9 design depicted in the “Standard Highway Signs”  19 book. The M1-9 design shows the route number above and the bicycle below which improves the legibility of the route number. The FHWA agrees with this recommendation, and has modified the M1-9 bicycle route marker.

256. In Section 9B.19 Destination Arrow and Supplemental Plaque Signs for Bicycle Route Signs, the NCUTCD recommended that the discussion of color of the M7-1 through M7-7 signs be stated as a STANDARD instead of GUIDANCE. The FWHA agrees and the discussion of sign colors is changed to a STANDARD to ensure uniformity.

257. In Figure 9B-2, the title has been revised by replacing the word “typical” with “example” and now reads “Example Signing for the Beginning and End of a Bicycle Route” since this may not be considered a “typical” drawing. Other modifications to the figure are made on comments received, including removing the crosswalk lines, extending the centerline through the roadway, adding a curb line at the beginning/end of the bicycle route, and extending the size of the arrow sign (M7-1) to match the D11-1 sign.

258. Figure 9C-3, “Typical Signing for the Beginning and End of a Bikeway of a Preferential Bicycle Lane,” is removed from the MUTCD. The NCUTCD submitted a figure that shows recommended signing and markings for bicycle lanes combined on one figure. The FHWA agrees with this concept, therefore a new Figure 9C-5, “Typical Pavement Marking for Bicycle Lanes on Two-way Street,” is added with accompanying text to Chapter 9C MARKINGS.

259. The FHWA received no objections to the proposed language in Section 9C.02 regarding pavement markings for bicycle facilities. The text in GUIDANCE is modified to include all bicycle facilities, not merely bicycle lanes. Also, the text in Section 9C.02 regarding “pavement marking materials that will minimize loss of traction under wet conditions” is changed to a more generalized statement since some materials may be slippery to bicyclists when dry as well as wet.

260. The FHWA received no objections to the proposal in Section 9C.03 to change the language from GUIDANCE to OPTION for using a solid white line to separate different types of users on shared use paths. The proposed change is adopted.

261. In Section 9C.04, the title now reads “Markings for Bicycle Lanes” in order to be consistent with the revised definition of this term. It was recommended that the word “preferential” be deleted throughout Part 9 to be consistent with the language found in the “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities,” 1999 edition, AASHTO. 20 This was adopted. Also, the proposed amendment to Section 9C.04 included text requiring signs to be used with preferential lane symbols. Commenters suggested deleting this text from this section since it is covered in Section 9B. The FHWA believes requiring the use of these signs is of importance and is including the proposed text in Section 9C.

The FHWA is adding a GUIDANCE statement to indicate how bicycle lanes are specifically defined by marking. This paragraph reads “Longitudinal pavement markings should be used to define bicycle lanes.”

Also in Section 9C.04, the FHWA is changing the STANDARD so that both markings and signs are mandatory. Use of pavement markings only would not alert drivers to the presence of the lane to the same extent as markings and signs together would, especially in inclement weather conditions.

Three commenters found the language proposed in Section 9C.04 regarding the placement of bicycle lane symbols immediately after an intersection confusing. The FHWA is revising the text to include maximum distance between markings. The sentence reads “If used, the bicycle lane symbol shall be placed immediately after, but not closer than 20m (65 ft) from the cross road, or other locations as needed.”

262. Several comments were received regarding Figure 9C-4, “Intersection Pavement Markings—Designated Bicycle Lane with Left Turn Area, Heavy Turn Volumes, Parking, One-way Traffic, or Divided Roadway.” The FHWA is adopting a figure submitted by the NCUTCD which more clearly shows recommended signs and symbols for a bicycle lane. Several comments were received regarding Figures 9C-7, Typical Bicycle Lane Treatment at Parking Lane into Right Turn Only Lane” and 9-8, “Typical Bicycle Lane Treatment at Right Turn Only Lane.” The figure legends that were proposed in the NPA are revised and corrected.

263. In Section 9C.06, the FHWA is expanding the discussion of markers on shared use paths in the STANDARD paragraph and is adding text to be consistent with the text found in Section 3C.02.

264. The FHWA's proposal to add a separate Section 9C.07 to cover the discussion on pavement markings used for obstruction received no objections, however, the title is simplified to “Pavement Markings for Obstructions.”

The SUPPORT statement in Section 9C.07 is modified by changing the word “condition” to “obstruction” to better define the application of this marking. The second sentence in the statement is deleted because such obstruction may not always be visible to bicyclists, and may lead to the marking not being used in locations where it is appropriate.

The GUIDANCE statement in Section 9C.07 is revised to make the marking applicable to obstructions other than drainage grates, and to specify that such markings should be used specifically for hazards near the roadway edge and not in the center of the roadway. The sentence reads “In roadway situations where a drainage grate or other roadway obstruction that is inappropriate for bicycle travel cannot be eliminated, white markings applied as shown in Figure 9C-7 should be used.”

265. In Section 9D.02 Signal Operations for Bicycles, one commenter recommended combining the discussion on visibility requirements with the discussion on signal operations for bicycles and using the term “visibility-limited signal faces.” There were no other negative comments received. One commenter recommended revising the language in the second paragraph. The FHWA agrees, and the text is revised to read “On bikeways, the needs of bicyclists shall be considered when setting signal timing.”

266. Modifications are made to several of the figures in Part 9 based on comments received. The Figure 9C-5 (NPA Figure 9-6) is divided into two figures based on comments received from the NCUTCD. The top two diagrams are numbered and titled “Figure 9B-3. Typical Signs and Marking for Shared-Use Paths.” The bottom right diagram on NPA Figure 9-6 is deleted because it is not considered necessary. The bottom two diagrams remain and are numbered and titled “Figure 9C-6. Optional Word and Symbol Pavement Markings for Bicycle Lanes.”

A new figure is added, numbered and titled “Figure 9C-2. Center Line Markings for Shared-Use Paths.” This figure depicts centerline and obstruction markings for paths. This figure is added to more clearly show how to divide a shared use path of sufficient width into two opposing lanes and how to delineate an obstruction.

The NPA Figure 9-9 is replaced with a figure that was submitted by the NCUTCD and is renumbered and titled “Figure 9C-7. Obstruction Pavement Marking.” This figure is also found in AASHTO's “Guide of Development of Bicycle Facilities,” and clearly shows marking details and taper rates.

267. As proposed in Part 9C of the NPA, the FHWA is deleting the preferential lane symbol (diamond) for bicycle signs and pavement markings. The American Traffic Safety Services Association commented that the 7 to 10 year phase-in is too long and should be shortened to 3 to 5 years if the use of the diamond symbol on preferential lanes has caused confusion among the public. The FHWA agrees that the use of the diamond symbol on preferential lanes is confusing and with ATSSA's suggestion requiring that all new projects comply now. The FHWA agrees that the 7 to 10 year phase-in is excessive and is revising the proposed phase-in period to 6 years. This change takes effect immediately for new installations.

The FHWA received 381 comments from 46 commenters concerning part 10. Only the technical (not editorial) comments are addressed in this discussion. The notice of proposed amendments (NPA) was published at 64 FR 33806 on June 24, 1999.

268. Part 10 is added to the MUTCD. The FHWA received 5 comments supporting the addition of Part 10 to the MUTCD.

269. In Section 10A.01 Introduction, a new paragraph 3 is added under the SUPPORT statement to read: “An initial educational campaign along with an ongoing program to continue to educate new drivers is beneficial when introducing light rail operations to an area and, hence, new traffic control devices.” This paragraph is added to address docket comment concerns about road users' comprehension of new traffic control devices that pertain to light rail operation.

Also in this section, a new paragraph 5 under STANDARD is added to read: “Where light rail transit and railroads use the same track or adjacent tracks, the traffic control devices, systems, and practices for railroad crossings shall be used. (See Part 8).” This paragraph is added based on review of docket comments concerning the use of the W10-6 sign (light rail transit advance warning sign) proposed to be added in Part 10 versus the W10-1 sign (highway-rail advance warning sign) that is required in Part 8. This paragraph clarifies that the traffic controls described in Part 8 have precedence when a track or adjacent tracks are used by both heavy and light rail.

The FHWA has removed from this section proposed paragraphs 4 (STANDARD) and 5 (OPTION) from the 1999 NPA, regarding applicability of Part 10 to only new and modernized locations and when consistent with Federal and State laws and regulations. The compliance date for automatic gates, flashing-light signals and blank-out signs is 5 years after the effective date of this final rule. This 5-year phase-in period for automatic gates, flashing-light signals and blank-out signs is given in order to not cause an undue economic burden on the affected jurisdictions.

270. In Section 10A.05 Temporary Traffic Control Zones, the FHWA is changing paragraph 7 concerning lane restrictions or the performance of flagging near highway-light rail transit grade crossings from GUIDANCE to STANDARD to be consistent with the STANDARD paragraph in Section 8A.05 Temporary Traffic Control Zones. This change will require that lane restrictions, flagging or other operations not be performed in a manner that would cause vehicles to stop on the tracks with no means of escape.

271. In Chapter 10C Signs, Illumination and Markings (titled “Signs, Pavement Markings, and Illumination” in the 1999 NPA), the FHWA is reordering the sections to follow other parts of the Manual (regulatory, warning, information, illumination and pavement markings). Within the regulatory category, the FHWA reordered the sections as: at the crossing, near the crossing, and then signs for mixed-use alignment operation. The new order is: 10C.01 Introduction, 10C.02 Look Sign, 10C.03 STOP or YIELD Sign, 10C.04 DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS Sign, 10C.05 STOP HERE ON RED Sign, 10C.06 Light Rail Transit-Activated Blank-Out Turn Prohibition Signs, 10C.07 Divided Highway With Light Rail Transit Crossing Sign, 10C.08 No Vehicles On Tracks Sign, 10C.09 Light Rail Transit Only Lane Signs, 10C.10 Do Not Pass Light Rail Transit Sign, 10C.11 Highway-Rail Advance Warning Signs, 10C.12 Light Rail Transit Approaching-Activated Blank-Out Warning Sign, 10C.13 Light Rail Station Sign, 10C.14 Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings, and 10C.15 Dynamic Envelope Delineation Markings.

272. In Section 10C.01 Introduction, the proposed OPTION paragraph in the 1999 NPA, concerning the use of smaller than standard size signs, is removed. A commenter stated that unlike bicycle facilities, for light rail transit, sign sizes and placement similar to standard highway signs are required because of the similarity of motor vehicle driver needs. The FHWA agrees with this comment and is removing the OPTION so that the signs conform to Chapter 2A as stated in the STANDARD. Since this issue is provided for in Chapter 2A, it should not be stated as an OPTION in this section.

273. Proposed Section 10C.02 Light Rail Transit Warning Signs (W10-6, W10-6a) has been removed and replaced with a new Section 10C.02 entitled, “LOOK Sign (R15-8).” Based on docket comments received about the W10-6 light rail transit advance warning sign and review of the section, the FHWA agrees that allowing the use of a warning sign at crossings to supplement the Crossbuck (Figure 10-6 in the 1999 NPA) is not appropriate (warning signs are used in advance to warn the road user of an approaching unexpected condition, not at the condition). The FHWA agrees to include the option to use the LOOK sign (R15-8) as a supplemental panel to the Crossbuck at light rail transit grade crossings. The LOOK sign is currently an OPTION allowed in Part 8, Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; therefore, to be consistent the FHWA is adding it to Part 10.

The FHWA received several comments in response to the proposal to add a new standard Light Rail Transit Warning Sign (W10-6) and a Light Rail Transit Both Directions Warning Sign (W10-6a, W10-6b). Three docket commenters stated that the W10-1 sign is already a universally accepted advance warning sign standard at all highway-rail grade crossings. They stated that the new light rail transit warning sign provides the potential for confusion and may fail to elicit the appropriate degree of caution. In an effort to create uniform standards, they recommend the W10-1 sign be installed instead of W10-6. One commenter wanted this sign to be an OPTION instead of a requirement, thinking that at signalized intersections with light rail transit crossing one leg the placement of the sign would be subject to different interpretations as to what approaches qualify for such an installation. One commenter suggested that the W10-6 and the W10-6a be round to match the shape of the W10-1. Another commenter stated that the distinction provided between the W10-6 and the W10-6a and W10-6b appears to be unnecessary and potentially hazardous and that drivers should be alert to the possibility of bi-directional rail traffic at all crossings.

In response to the above comments, the FHWA is removing the section referenced in the 1999 NPA as 10C.2 Light Rail Transit Warning Signs (W10-6, W10-6a) and replacing it with Section 10C.11 Highway-Rail Advance Warning Signs (W10-1, W10-2, W10-3, W10-4). The W10-1 sign is already a universally accepted advance warning sign standard at all highway-rail grade crossings and is currently required in Part 8 of the MUTCD. This will remove the potential for confusion and the potential of not achieving the appropriate degree of caution. The compliance date removal of existing W10-6 series signs is 5 years after the effective date of this final rule. This 5-year phase-in period for removal of existing W10-6 series signs is given in order to not cause an undue economic burden on the affected jurisdictions.

274. In Section 10C.03 STOP or YIELD Signs (R1-1, W3-1, R1-2, W3-2), two commenters suggested the wording on the use of STOP AHEAD or YIELD AHEAD signs be changed to match that in Section 2C.25 (use on approaches with insufficient sight distance). The FHWA agrees with these comments and made text changes to reflect this change.

One commenter requested a change from a STANDARD to an OPTION, and another commenter requested a change from a STANDARD to a GUIDANCE when STOP or YIELD signs are used to control the highway-light rail transit crossing. The FHWA disagrees that the STANDARD should be changed to an OPTION or a GUIDANCE. A clarifying phrase is added to the end of the first paragraph that indicates the STOP AHEAD and YIELD AHEAD signs shall be installed in accordance with Section 2C.25. Section 2C.25 indicates that these signs shall be installed if there is a sight distance problem.

Six commenters suggested the addition of two new characteristics for deciding whether to use a STOP or YIELD sign. The FHWA will consider the proposal for adding two new characteristics for deciding if a crossing should use a STOP or YIELD sign in the future.

One commenter indicated that proposed paragraph 4 in the 1999 NPA (covering not installing a STOP or YIELD sign near a crossing such that vehicles might extend into the path of an approaching light rail transit vehicle) is in conflict with State laws concerning when a light rail crosses a local road that intersects a State highway, the local road is required to stop before entering the highway. The FHWA agrees and is removing this sentence and replacing it with a new paragraph that gives GUIDANCE about posting a DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS sign if a STOP or YIELD sign is installed near a crossing where vehicle queues are likely to extend into the path of a light rail transit train.

One commenter took exception to the GUIDANCE recommending that STOP or YIELD signs be erected on a separate post. He stated that this guidance was unnecessarily restrictive and that there is no reason why a STOP sign could not be mounted on an existing fixture ( e.g., a street light pole) if that fixture is in a suitable position. He said that the other requirements of this paragraph are already covered by Part 2, and the entire paragraph 4 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 3) should be deleted. The FHWA agrees that STOP and YIELD signs may be installed on another suitable post and is changing that paragraph to an OPTION instead of deleting it.

After review of this section, the FHWA is removing proposed paragraph 5 in the 1999 NPA, (OPTION) regarding the option to install a STOP or YIELD sign as an interim measure while waiting for active devices to be installed and operational. This paragraph is no longer appropriate because Section 10B.01 Introduction and other paragraphs in Section 10C.03 give the authority to use STOP and YIELD signs at crossings for other than interim measures.

275. In Section 10C.06 Light Rail Transit-Activated Blank-Out Turn Prohibition Sign (R3-1a to R3-2a) (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10C.04), a commenter questioned the appropriateness of transit-activated turn prohibitions. His experience with such blank-out signs showed that road users often fail to note and respond to the activation of such signs. He found this problem significant in cases of high volumes or permissive left turns across heavy traffic. He recommended using traffic signal phasing with protected/prohibited operation instead of these signs. The FHWA disagrees. These signs are appropriate for use, and road users are helped by and do respond to the message. If protected-only left-turn phasing is used, it would not be necessary to install a blank-out turn-prohibition sign for the left-turn movement.

One commenter objected to the blank-out sign because he said the detail on the sign cannot be reproduced on a fiber optic sign. A problem was also found with adding the railroad tracks to the sign because it may weaken turn prohibitions where no specified hazard is identified on the sign. The FHWA disagrees with this comment. There are a number of different technologies that can be used to convey this message if the use of fiber optic technology for this sign is in question.

After a review of this section, the FHWA realized that the GUIDANCE given in proposed paragraph 2 of the 1999 NPA unduly prohibited the use of this sign on mixed-use alignments. In proposed paragraph 3 of the 1999 NPA, the words “on a semi-exclusive alignment” also unduly prohibited the use of this sign on mixed-use alignments. The FHWA is removing paragraph 2 from GUIDANCE and the words, “on a semi-exclusive alignment” from paragraph 3 to allow the light rail transit-activated blank-out turn prohibition signs to be used in mixed-use and semi-exclusive alignments.

276. In Section 10C.08 No Vehicles on Tracks Sign (R15-6, R15-6a) (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section10C.07), several comments were received as well as the results from the FHWA research study, “Evaluation of Selected Potential MUTCD Signs.”  21 One commenter requested that the use of this sign be extended to locations where the tracks are only separated by pavement markings. The FHWA agrees with this comment and is making the appropriate text changes to this section.

Another commenter suggested that the use of this sign is more appropriate when adjacent traffic lanes are separated from the transit lane only by striping or lane designation, and that it is obvious when curbs are used that vehicles are prohibited from driving on the tracks and the curb itself provides a deterrent. The FHWA partially agrees with this comment. However, we believe an important application of this sign is at intersections in order to inform drivers not to proceed down the wrong (light rail transit) side of the curb.

A third commenter thought the sign would call attention to the tracks and be misinterpreted as indicating traffic may travel on the exclusive roadway as long as they do not drive on the tracks. He also suggested using turn restrictions and DO NOT ENTER signs instead. The FHWA disagrees with the suggestion to substitute a DO NOT ENTER sign for a No Vehicles on Tracks symbol sign—it is important to tell drivers why they are not permitted to enter or turn onto the light rail transit track area, as some drivers intentionally violate turn restriction signs when they think that they will not be putting their safety in jeopardy. When the guideway is not paved, most agencies will not exercise their option to use this sign. However, the FHWA agrees that in some instances a DO NOT ENTER (R5-1) sign is appropriate. The FHWA is removing the phrase from paragraph 1 (SUPPORT) that suggests the No Vehicles on Tracks sign is appropriate for streets solely for light rail transit. The FHWA is adding as the new second paragraph in Section 10C.08 the following GUIDANCE language: The DO NOT ENTER (R5-1) sign should be used where a road user could wrongly enter a light rail transit only street.” A DO NOT ENTER conveys the message better for this situation.

The fourth commenter recommended a word message sign be used instead of the symbol sign because the symbol is confusing. The FHWA disagrees that only a word message sign (DO NOT DRIVE ON TRACKS, R15-6a) should be used. However, the FHWA is adding an optional word message sign that could be used in lieu of the symbol sign based on this docket comment and results from the FHWA symbol sign research. 22

277. In Section 10C.09 Light Rail Transit Only Lane Signs (R15-4 Series) (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10C.05), one commenter suggested that the use of the “Light Rail Transit Only Lane” regulatory (R15-4 series) sign in mixed alignments (an alignment where motor vehicles and light rail transits operate in the same lane) does not appear to be appropriate. He recommended that the OPTION paragraph be revised. The FHWA disagrees with this comment because the purpose of these signs is for mixed-use alignments.

278. In Section 10C.10 Do Not Pass Light Rail Transit Sign (R15-5) (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10C.06), the FHWA conducted a symbol sign research evaluation. 23 Based on the results of that study, an optional word message sign is added: “DO NOT PASS STOPPED TRAIN” (R15-5a).

279. In Section 10C.12 Light Rail Transit Approaching-Activated Blank-Out Warning Sign (W10-7) (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10C.11), one commenter found the proposed W10-7 sign to be unclear and had the potential to be confused with the I-12 sign. The commenter believes that by shape and color, the W10-7 sign appears to be regulatory rather than warning. He also believes that standard railroad warning signs and exclusive signal phases appear to be adequate without the W10-7 sign. The FHWA partially agrees and is adding descriptive wording to the text to reinforce that the W10-7 sign is a warning sign.

Six commenters suggested that the proposed third paragraph be changed from an OPTION to GUIDANCE, recommending these signs be used at traffic signals where traffic turning across tracks is not controlled by exclusive signal phases. The FHWA disagrees because many agencies do not want to use these signs. Changing this to GUIDANCE would force these agencies to justify their decision to not use a device that should only be an OPTION.

One commenter suggested that a special sign is not needed for this situation because the road user does not distinguish between heavy and light rail. The FHWA disagrees because there is no similar sign for heavy rail.

One commenter stated that the proposed format of the blank-out sign does not convey a message that the light rail transit car may be approaching from behind the driver. Also, the use of a verbal message format should be an OPTION. The FHWA disagrees. This sign is not required, but is a device the traffic engineer may use. The FHWA is adding descriptive words to the text to improve this section.

280. In Section 10C.14 Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings, the FHWA is removing proposed paragraph 2 of the 1999 NPA, (STANDARD) of this section, dealing with location of luminaires, because it is already covered in paragraph 2 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 3), which references a recommended practice for roadway lighting.

281. In Section 10C.15 Dynamic Envelope Delineation (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10C.13), one commenter recommended deleting the proposed fifth paragraph of the 1999 NPA where GUIDANCE is provided on delineation along the roadway between intersections in mixed-use alignments. He believed that this practice could confuse road users and diminish their respect for the distinctive paving at locations where its purpose is to deter vehicle encroachment into a reserved trackway. The FHWA disagrees because delineation of the dynamic envelope along the roadway in mixed-use alignments will better communicate to road users where to expect the light rail transit train. This is especially important in mixed-use alignments because road users may have a greater number of possible crossings with a light rail transit train (depending on lane restrictions). However, the FHWA is changing this paragraph to an OPTION so the decision of whether to delineate the dynamic envelope in mixed-use alignments can be made based on local conditions.

One commenter suggested changing the proposed sixth paragraph of the 1999 NPA (on extending the markings across all highway-light rail transit crossings) from GUIDANCE to OPTION because it may be more appropriate to use a stop line so motorists don't pull up to the dynamic envelope marking thinking it serves as a stop line and be in the way of a descending gate. The FHWA agrees with changing this paragraph to an OPTION; and includes the drawing of the dynamic envelope pavement marking for a semi-exclusive alignment (currently shown in Figure 8B-4 in Part 8) in Figure 10C-2. The FHWA is modifying the length of the pavement marking in that figure to extend across the width of the entire roadway so it will not be confused with a stop line.

One commenter suggested that markings should only be installed when an engineering study demonstrates a need to define the envelope. The FHWA agrees with this suggestion and is changing paragraph 2 of this section to be an OPTION in the MUTCD. The FHWA also is adding a phrase to the end of paragraph 7 explaining that if used, markings should extend across all crossings, “unless a four quadrant gate system (see Section 10D.04) is used.”

One commenter stated that additional guidance is needed on pavement marking colors, line style, etc. The FHWA agrees and is modifying paragraph 3 to add the words, “and shall be a 100 mm (4 in) normal solid white line” to the end of the paragraph. The current text refers to Part 3, but there is no mention of the size and colors of dynamic envelope delineation in Part 3.

282. In Section 10D.01 Introduction, one commenter stated that, based on experience with light rail transit operating speeds, the speeds mentioned in paragraph 6 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 2) need to be changed from a maximum speed of 55 mph to a maximum speed of 65 mph. The FHWA agrees and is making this change to the text.

Another commenter suggested deleting proposed paragraph 4 of the 1999 NPA (the last paragraph in SUPPORT) and proposed paragraph 5 of the 1999 NPA (the first paragraph in GUIDANCE) because they do not make any substantive contribution to Part 10. The FHWA agrees that these paragraphs are unnecessary and is removing them.

Six commenters suggested paragraph 5 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 7), on audible devices, be changed from OPTION to GUIDANCE in order to provide adequate warning for the visually impaired community and to meet the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements. The FHWA disagrees because the ADA requirements do not require audible devices at every grade crossing. The FHWA believes that changing paragraph 5 to GUIDANCE could mean significant financial burdens to State and local governments. In addition, the FHWA believes that the jurisdictions that need these devices will conduct the appropriate engineering studies and install these devices. FHWA will investigate this issue further.

283. The FHWA is adding two new sections to Chapter 10D Highway-Light Rail Transit Active Traffic Control Grade Crossing Systems. The FHWA is adding Section 10D.02 Four Quadrant Gate Systems to mirror the current wording in Part 8 (Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings) to govern four quadrant gate systems, if used. This decision is based on the inclusion of a section on four quadrant gates in Part 8 and the current use of four quadrant gates at highway-light rail transit grade crossings. The FHWA is adding Section 10D.04 Flashing-Light Signals, to properly categorize some of the wording from Section 10D.03 Automatic Gates (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10D.02) and to cover the aspects of flashing-light signals that are unique to light rail transit.

284. In Section 10D.03 Automatic Gates (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10D.02 Traffic Gates), one commenter suggested that the title should be changed from “Traffic Gates,” to “Automatic Gates” because the term “Automatic Gates” is used in Part 8. The FHWA agrees and has changed the title to “Automatic Gates” for this section (to match Part 8).

Another commenter suggested the FHWA not use the term “automatic gate” since most, if not all, gates at highway-rail grade crossings and highway-light rail transit grade crossings are operated by power and controlled by electrical circuits that make them automatic. However, there was concern that the term “traffic gate” failed to distinguish between Barrier (Resistance) Gates, and Warning Gates. He suggested that “traffic gates” be replaced by “barrier traffic gates.” The FHWA disagrees because, before changing to a term other than “automatic gates” (as used in Part 8), the development of new technical definitions needs to be addressed by the rail and traffic engineering professions.

Six commenters suggested changing paragraph 3 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 2) from a GUIDANCE to a STANDARD. They stated that industry experience has found gated light rail transit grade crossings safer than ungated crossings, especially at speeds above 60 km/h (35 mph). In addition, they stated that the California Public Utilities Commission requires that gates be used where light rail transit speeds exceed 60 km/h (35 mph). Where light rail transit speeds exceed 60 km/h (35 mph), the commenters said the need for gates is due to both the increased stopping distance required for light rail vehicles traveling over this speed and the increase in property damage, injuries and fatalities reported when light rail transit collisions occur at speeds above 60 km/h (35 mph). The commenters also say this is standard design practice for all new light rail transit systems in the United States, and so would not create an additional financial burden for light rail transit systems. The FHWA disagrees with changing this paragraph to a STANDARD at this time. Additionally, the USDOT Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group is developing a report that may recommend changes in GUIDANCE at active highway-rail grade crossings. Based on that report, the FHWA will consider whether changes to Part 10 are needed.

Six commenters suggested that paragraph 5 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 4), concerning the OPTION to install automatic gates and flashing-light signals when the highway-light rail transit grade crossing is not at an intersection and when light rail transit speeds greater than 40 km/h (25 mph), be changed from OPTION to STANDARD because of industry experience. The commenters state that motorists are not expecting to stop at mid-block locations, and as such the need for traffic gates is greater at lower light rail transit speeds to provide a physical barrier between the motorist and the tracks. The FHWA disagrees with changing this paragraph to a STANDARD. This proposed change would need to be part of a future notice of proposed amendment to allow the public a chance to comment. Additionally, the USDOT Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group is developing a report that may lead to changes in GUIDANCE at active crossings. After reviewing that report, the FHWA will consider whether changes are needed to Part 10.

Two commenters questioned the restriction of light rail transit speeds in paragraph 5 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 4). The FHWA disagrees with these objections because paragraph 5 defines when traffic control signals may be used instead of flashing-light signals or gates. That paragraph is not an attempt to control speeds of light rail transit operations or drivers of other motor vehicles. The criteria listed in this paragraph are not speed limits. Paragraph 5 contains valuable information to most agencies, however it is not a STANDARD. This paragraph allows a particular agency to use traffic control signals at a grade crossing that has light rail transit speeds in excess of 60 km/h (35 mph). This paragraph does not limit light rail transit speeds; it discusses the use of gates depending on speed.

285. In Section 10D.05 Traffic Control Signals (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10D.03). One commenter suggested a change to paragraph 3, GUIDANCE, saying 60 meters (200 ft) is inadequate for desirable interconnection. He recommended 200 m (650 ft) and recommended that this be a STANDARD requirement. The FHWA disagrees because 60 meters (200 feet) is the distance used in other parts of the MUTCD for guidance related to railroad preemption.

Six commenters suggested two new paragraphs (concerning the use of traffic control signals at highway-light rail transit grade crossings based on an engineering study, light rail transit speeds, and traffic control devices at the crossings) be added as OPTIONS. The FHWA partially agrees, but is only adding the phrase, “at a location other than an intersection,” to paragraph 9 of Section 10D.05. The remainder of the suggested new paragraph will not be added because the FHWA does not want road users to disregard the importance of traffic signals. If traffic signals are placed at grade crossings where they would display GREEN for a majority of the time, there will be a disregard for traffic signals. The suggested second paragraph would conflict with Part 8.

Three commenters requested that the paragraph referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 7 (exclusive only turn phase with arrow indications) be changed from OPTION to GUIDANCE. They stated that industry experience has demonstrated that, at intersections with exclusive turn lanes parallel to the tracks, a protected only turn phase should be provided to minimize the potential for a road user to run in front of a light rail vehicle approaching from behind. As a result of these docket comments, the FHWA has changed this paragraph to a STANDARD instead of the requested GUIDANCE to improve safety at highway-light rail transit grade crossings. This paragraph was reworded to require a red indication to be displayed so that vehicles are prohibited from turning onto the tracks when trains are approaching or occupying the crossing. The FHWA also has moved this paragraph into the Traffic Signal Preemption Turning Restrictions section (now renumbered as Section 10D.06).

286. In Section 10D.06 Traffic Signal Preemption Turning Restrictions (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10D.04), two commenters opposed the restriction of turn movements at nearby signalized intersections. They believed the restriction should be changed to provide for an engineering study of site conditions. The FHWA disagrees. Motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists should not be trapped when crossing the tracks due to a lack of storage distance and should not run into the path of an oncoming train.

287. In Section 10D.07 Use of Traffic Control Signals for Control of Light Rail Transit Vehicles at Grade Crossings (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10D.05), six commenters recommended that paragraph 3 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 2), concerning allowing standard traffic signals to be used for light rail transit signals, be deleted. They stated that industry experience has demonstrated that motorist confusion occurs if standard traffic signal indications are used in lieu of special light rail transit signal indications. They stated that existing systems that have standard traffic signals in place to control light rail transit movements will not be affected by this because of the provisions in the 1999 NPA in paragraphs 4 and 5 in Section 10A.01. The FHWA disagrees with deleting paragraph 3. There is no reason why green-yellow-red signals cannot be used to control light rail transit traffic, especially since the GUIDANCE (erroneously shown as the second paragraph of SUPPORT in Section 10D.5, paragraph 6 of the 1999 NPA) states that the indications should be positioned so as not to be visible to motorists. In addition, proposed paragraphs 4 and 5 in the 1999 NPA for Section 10A.01 have been deleted. The FHWA has changed this GUIDANCE concerning positioning of indications to a STANDARD in paragraph 4, to emphasize the importance of positioning green-yellow-red signals.

One commenter recommended that the second sentence in paragraph 5 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 3), concerning termination of the light rail transit phase, be moved to GUIDANCE. He indicated that it is not always practical to terminate the light rail phase until after the light rail transit vehicle has cleared the crossing. The FHWA disagrees because we believe that modern electronics technology can accomplish this STANDARD and because it does not seem safe to terminate a light rail transit phase prior to the light rail transit clearing the crossing.

Another commenter also recommended deletion of the second sentence in paragraph 5 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 3), concerning termination of the light rail transit phase, because this requirement would preclude the use of fixed time traffic controllers on light rail transit intersections. The FHWA disagrees because of the hazard associated with the light rail transit phase terminating prior to the clearing of the crossing and because actuated controller equipment can be used. In addition, a pre-timed controller set up with special cabinet wiring that allows stop-timing on the light rail transit phase would satisfy this STANDARD.

Six comments were received regarding paragraph 2 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 4) and Figure 10D-1 (numbered as Figure 10-1 in the 1999 NPA). Two commenters suggested the GUIDANCE was too specific regarding the white bars and that it is not a proper function of the Manual to dictate the specifics of railway signaling. They stated that green, yellow and red signal indications are universally recognized, and other coding systems increase the opportunity for error. One commenter opposed the language on the use of white bars, because white bars are used for track switching operations, and a switching operation signal should be different from a stop and go signal. He recommended adopting the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) language of a T shape, or a vertical or horizontal bar for the Go signal. Another commenter said the CTCDC permits a shape and a triangle in addition to the bars. He recommended that the triangle and T shape be added to the list of signal indications. One commenter suggested that an amber color should be allowed for the horizontal bar with a white color for the vertical bar. Another commenter recommended deletion of the language governing diverging routes in Figure 10D-1. Based on these docket comments, the FHWA is changing this paragraph to an OPTION and is making it less specific regarding railway signaling. The FHWA is also modifying Figure 10D-1 to say “Typical,” not “Recommended.”

Two commenters opposed the 8 ft separation between the light rail transit signals and traffic signals described in paragraph 7 (referenced in the 1999 NPA as paragraph 8). They suggested a minimum 3 ft separation. One reasoned that the separation is unnecessary since the signals are required to be distinctly different, and such a requirement could force the placement of a light rail transit signal into a sub-satisfactory position. The other commenter stated that since the light rail transit signal and traffic signal displays are dissimilar such a restriction would correspond to requiring a pedestrian signal and vehicular traffic signal to be separated by 8 feet. The FHWA partially agrees but believes some separation is desirable. Therefore, the FHWA is changing the requirement to a 1m (3 ft) separation.

288. In Section 10D.08 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Signals and Crossings (referenced in the 1999 NPA as Section 10D.06 Non-Motorist Signals and Crossings), one commenter suggested that the term “non-motorist” be replaced with “pedestrian” because “non-motorist” is both cumbersome and strange. The FHWA partially agrees and is changing the term “non-motorist” to “pedestrian and bicyclist” in the title of this section and throughout this section.

Six commenters recommended the first sentence of proposed paragraph 3 of the 1999 NPA, concerning the use of flashing-light signals, be changed from OPTION to GUIDANCE. The FHWA agrees and is changing this sentence to GUIDANCE, with minor modifications to the sentence to respond to another comment.

One commenter suggested that paragraph 4 be changed to recommend flashing-light signals instead of gates at pedestrian crossings where an engineering study has determined sight distance is insufficient for completion of crossing prior to arrival of light rail transit, or where light rail transit speeds are greater than 60 km/h (35mph). The commenter suggested gates be allowed as an OPTION if flashing-light signals are not sufficient. The FHWA agrees that flashing-light signals should be added before or with gates, and is making appropriate text changes to paragraph 4.

One commenter indicated that the text and the figure reference in paragraph 4 disagree. The commenter suggested text be added to indicate that a traffic gate may be used as a combination vehicle/pedestrian control device by placing the gate behind the sidewalk, keeping in mind that the flashing-light signals need to be clearly visible to road users and the lights shall not be obstructed by walls, buildings, trees, etc. The commenter further recommended another restriction for such an installation should be that the gate arm length not be excessive, as determined by industry standards. The FHWA partially agrees; however, gates do not necessarily need to be placed behind the sidewalk. Figure 10D-3 shows this type of combination vehicle/pedestrian traffic control device. The FHWA is correcting the references to the figures in this section. The third sentence suggested by the commenter referred to industry standards that the FHWA is not aware of, so that sentence is not included in the text.

The same commenter recommended that paragraph 5 would then no longer be relevant and should be deleted. The FHWA disagrees because the SUPPORT paragraph is still relevant to describe the optional gates.

One commenter suggested criteria be added to Section 10D.08 for the use of swing gates or that paragraph 6, which mentions swing gates, be deleted. The FHWA disagrees because the swing gates are described and illustrated in an acceptable manner. The purpose of swing gates is to prevent pedestrians from entering the track area.

Another commenter recommended new figures be added to Part 10 that show light rail transit/pedestrian and bicycle crossings that take up a smaller amount of right-of-way. The FHWA disagrees because the text and figures in Part 10 do not refer to the amount of right-of-way needed for accommodating light rail transit parallel to a roadway.

One commenter stated that physically blocking the sidewalk with an automatic gate, shown in Figures 10D-3, 10D-4, and 10D-5 (numbered in the 1999 NPA as Figures 10-3, 10-4, and 10-5) can be problematic and should not be considered “typical.” The commenter believed that this matter is addressed sufficiently in the text and these illustrations should be deleted. The FHWA disagrees. Blocking sidewalks with automatic gates during the passage of trains or light rail transit vehicles is done all the time and is safe, not problematic.

The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. Most of the changes in this final rule provide additional guidance, clarification, and optional applications for traffic control devices. The FHWA believes that the uniform application of traffic control devices will greatly improve the traffic operations efficiency and the safety of roadways at little additional expense to public agencies or the motoring public. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 (U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities, including small governments. This final rule adds some alternative traffic control devices and only a very limited number of new or changed requirements. Most of the changes are expanded guidance and clarification information. Based on this evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that this action does not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in the MUTCD directly preempts any State law or regulation. The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F, which requires that changes to the national standards issued by the FHWA shall be adopted by the States or other Federal agencies within 2 years of issuance. These amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of Transportation's authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to promulgate uniform guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of the highway. Note that the overriding safety benefits of the uniformity prescribed by the MUTCD are shared by all of the State and local governments, and that changes made in this notice are directed at enhancing safety. To the extent that these amendments override any existing State requirements regarding traffic control devices, they do so in the interest of national uniformity.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

This action does not contain a collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Note that the revisions directed by this action can be phased in by the States over specified time periods in order to minimize hardship. The changes made to traffic control devices that would require an expenditure of funds all have effective dates sufficiently long to allow normal maintenance funds to replace the devices at the end of the material life-cycle. To the extent the involved revisions require expenditures by the States and local governments on Federal-aid projects, they are reimbursable. This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

The Office published a final rule in the Federal Register of September 8, 2000 (65 FR 54604), entitled “Changes to Implement Patent Business Goals” (final rule). This document corrects errors in that final rule as discussed below.

The final rule is corrected to indicate that the changes to §§ 1.52(e), 1.96, and 1.821 et seq. concerning the submission of computer program listings and sequence listings are effective on September 8, 2000, rather than November 7, 2000.

The final rule is corrected to indicate that the time period for requesting a refund for fees paid prior to November 7, 2000, expires the later of November 8, 2000 (rather than November 7, 2002), or two years from the date the fee was paid. Since this correction will not be published until after November 7, 2000, the two-year time period for requesting a refund is extended to expire on the later of the date that is sixty days after publication of this correction notice in the Federal Register or the date that is two years from the date the fee was paid.

The final rule is corrected to eliminate the sentences indicating that only the paper portions of the application will be published as patent application publications or patents. Portions of an application submitted on an electronic medium under § 1.52(e) will be available (published) at least through an electronic medium.

The final rule is corrected to indicate that if continuity data is included in an application data sheet, but not in the first sentence of the specification, the continuity data to be set forth in the application data sheet will not appear in the first line of the specification in the patent. In such a situation, the continuity data will only appear on the front page of the patent.

The final rule is corrected to delete the sentence indicating that § 1.78(a)(4) is additionally amended by deletion of the term “copending” as a requirement for a nonprovisional application to claim priority to a provisional application. Section 1.78 was previously amended to delete the copendency requirement for a nonprovisional application claiming priority to a provisional application. See Changes to Application Examination and Provisional Application Practice, interim rule, 65 FR 14865, 14867, 14872 (Mar. 20, 2000), 1233 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 47, 48, 53 (Apr. 11, 2000).

Section 1.14(h) in the final rule is corrected to refer to “§ 1.47(c)” rather than “§§ 1.47(a) and (b)” (the relevant portion of §§ 1.47(a) and (b) was transferred to new § 1.47(c)).

Sections 1.16(a) through (l), 1.17(a) through (e), (r) and (s), 1.18(a) through (c), 1.20(d) through (h) and 1.492(a) through (e) are corrected to change their reference to “§ 1.9(f)” to a reference to “§ 1.27(a)” (the substance of former § 1.9(f) was transferred to § 1.27(a)).

Section 1.20(b) is corrected to indicate that its fee is a processing fee (rather than a petition fee).

Section 1.53(c) is corrected to change its reference to “§ 1.78(a)(3)” to a reference to “35 U.S.C. 119(e) and § 1.78(a)(4)” (the substance of former § 1.78(a)(3) was transferred to “§ 1.78(a)(4)).”

Section 1.366 is corrected to change its reference to “§ 1.28(b)” to a reference to “§ 1.27(g)” (the substance of former § 1.28(b) was transferred to § 1.27(g)).

Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used, we mean EPA.

The supplemental information is organized in the following order:

We are approving the following:

A. The post-1996 ROP plan for the Illinois portion of the Chicago ozone nonattainment area (see the definition of the Chicago ozone nonattainment area and the Illinois portion of this area below);

B. The contingency measure plan for this area; and,

C. TCMs implemented between 1996 and 1999 in the area.

We are approving the post-1996 ROP plan because it adequately demonstrates that the State has achieved a permanent and enforceable emission reduction as required for a post-1996 ROP plan by the Act and has made adequate incremental progress toward attaining the 1-hour ozone standard in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. The post-1996 plan addressed in this rulemaking covers VOC and NO X emission reductions occurring prior to November 15, 1999.

The State also submitted with the post-1996 ROP plan a demonstration that the Chicago area meets the contingency measure requirements of the Act. We are approving the contingency measure demonstration because it adequately shows a 3 percent reduction in emissions beyond that which is necessary to meet the ROP plan requirements.

We are approving certain TCMs submitted with the post-1996 ROP plan as a revision to the SIP. The plan relies on these TCMs as part of the overall strategy to meet the ROP emission reduction requirement. To be creditable, the TCMs must be incorporated into the SIP.

On December 18, 1997, the State of Illinois submitted the post-1996 ROP plan for the Chicago ozone nonattainment area as a requested SIP revision. The plan was submitted to meet the Act's requirement, in section 182(c)(2)(B), that the State demonstrate a 9 percent reduction of VOC emissions in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area for the 3 year period between 1996 and 1999. The State submitted proposed amendments to the plan on December 17, 1999, and January 14, 2000, with a request for us to parallel process the plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. On January 21, 2000, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) transmitted further changes to the plan in response to public comments received at the State's January 18, 2000 public hearing. On March 3, 2000, we published a proposed approval, through parallel process, on the Illinois proposed plan as amended January 21, 2000. (See 65 FR 11525). On February 17, 2000, Illinois completed its public review process on the amended plan, which was necessary to receive final approval by us. The State completed its Responsiveness Summary to public comments on February 17, 2000. Illinois also submitted its final, adopted post-1996 ROP plan on February 17, 2000. No changes were made to the plan as proposed on January 14, 2000.

During the 30-day public comment period for our March 3, 2000 proposed rulemaking, we received one public comment letter on the proposal. We address these comments in section VI of this action.

An ROP plan is a strategy to achieve timely periodic reductions of emissions that produce ground-level ozone (smog) in areas that are not attaining the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A post-1996 ROP plan demonstrates how ozone-forming VOC emissions affecting an area will be reduced by 9 percent between 1996 and 1999 (in post-1996 ROP plans, NO X emission reductions may be substituted for VOC emission reductions, as discussed below).

ROP plans are a requirement of the Act under section 182. Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires States with ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious and above to adopt and implement plans to achieve periodic reductions in VOC emissions after 1996. The requirement is intended to ensure that an area makes progress toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The post-1996 ROP emission reductions are to occur at a rate of 3 percent per year relative to the 1990 baseline emissions, net of emission growth, averaged over three-year periods. States must achieve the first three-year 9 percent milestone, called the “post-1996 ROP plan,” by November 15, 1999. Because the Chicago ozone nonattainment area is classified as severe, the area is subject to the post-1996 ROP requirement.

In lieu of the 9 percent VOC emission reduction, under section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act, the post-1996 ROP plan (and subsequent ROP plans) may provide for reductions of both VOC and NO X emissions as long as the combination of VOC and NO X emission reductions result in ozone concentration reductions equivalent to or exceeding the ozone concentration reductions resulting from the 9 percent VOC emissions reduction. The substitution of NO X emission reductions is further discussed below.

The post-1996 ROP plan contains: (1) Documentation showing how the State calculated the emission reduction(s) needed on a daily basis to achieve a 9 percent VOC emission reduction (or its equivalent in combined VOC and NO X emission reductions); (2) a description of the control measures used to achieve the emission reduction; and (3) a description of how the State has determined the emission reduction from each control measure.

On December 18, 1997, we approved a 15 percent ROP plan for the Chicago Area which showed a 15 percent VOC emission reduction between 1990 and 1996, as required under section 182(b)(1) of the Act (see 62 FR 66279). This 15 percent reduction is a measure of progress toward achieving attainment. The Chicago nonattainment area, however, has not reached attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through the 15 percent reduction alone. The post-1996 ROP plan will contribute to continued progress toward achieving attainment by the Act's mandated date of November 15, 2007 for the Chicago ozone nonattainment area.

In addition to the post-1996 ROP plan, the Illinois submittal also addresses contingency measures required under the Act.

Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires States with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to adopt contingency measures by November 15, 1993. Such measures must provide for the implementation of specific emission control measures if an ozone nonattainment area fails to achieve ROP or fails to attain the NAAQS within the time-frame specified under the Act. Section 182(c)(9) of the Act requires that, in addition to the contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9), the contingency measure SIP revisions for serious and above ozone nonattainment areas must also provide for the implementation of specific measures if the area fails to meet any applicable milestone in the Act. As provided by these sections of the Act, the contingency measures must take effect without further action by the State or by the EPA Administrator upon failure by the State to: meet ROP emission reduction milestones; achieve attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the Act's required deadline; or achieve other applicable milestones of the Act.

Our policy, as provided in the April 16, 1992, “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (General Preamble) (57 FR 13498), states that the contingency measures, in total, must generally be able to provide for a 3 percent reduction of 1990 VOC baseline emissions beyond the reduction required for a particular milestone year.

While all contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or measures, States can use the measures in two different ways. A State can choose to implement contingency measures before the milestone deadline. Alternatively, a State may decide not to implement a contingency measure until an area has actually failed to achieve a ROP or attainment milestone. In the latter situation, the contingency measure must be implemented within one year following identification of a milestone failure.

In the December 18, 1997 rulemaking approving the 15 percent ROP Plan for the Chicago Area, we indicated that the 15 percent ROP plan had enough emission reductions to provide a 3 percent reduction beyond the 15 percent reduction required for 1996. The General Preamble indicates that the 3 percent reduction “buffer” must be maintained through each ROP milestone. Therefore, Illinois must demonstrate that the Chicago area has enough contingency measure reductions in addition to the reductions claimed for the post-1996 ROP plan to maintain the 3 percent emissions reduction buffer. Because of this requirement, Illinois' post-1996 ROP plan identifies, for contingency purposes, a 3 percent emission reduction beyond the emission reduction required for ROP.

The proposed Illinois post-1996 ROP plan shows reductions of both VOC and NO X emissions. VOC and NO X contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone in the atmosphere.

The reactivity of ozone causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. When inhaled, even at low levels, ozone can:

• Cause acute respiratory problems such as shortness of breath, chest pain, wheezing, and coughing;

• Aggravate asthma;

• Cause significant temporary decreases in lung capacity;

• Cause inflammation of lung tissue;

• Lead to hospital admissions and emergency room visits; and,

• Impair the body's immune system, making people more susceptible to respiratory illness, including bronchitis and pneumonia.

Repeated exposure to ozone at elevated concentrations for several months may cause permanent structural damage to the lungs.

Because ozone usually forms in hot weather, anyone who spends time outdoors in the summer is at risk, particularly children, moderate exercisers, and outdoor workers. Children are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone because their respiratory systems are still developing and are more susceptible to environmental threats. Children also breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults, thus increasing the potential impacts of their exposure.

People with existing lung disease, including asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema, are at particular risk from high ozone levels. Since they already suffer from reduced ability to breathe, these individuals are often greatly affected by the increased impairment that can result from exposure to ozone.

Ozone also affects vegetation and ecosystems, leading to reductions in agricultural and commercial forest yields, reduced growth and survivability of tree seedlings, and increased plant susceptibility to disease, pests, and other environmental stresses ( e.g., harsh weather). In long-lived species, these effects may become evident only after several years or even decades, thus having the potential for long-term effects on forest ecosystems. Ground-level ozone damage to the foliage of trees and other plants also can decrease the aesthetic value of ornamental species as well as the natural beauty of our national parks and recreation areas.

The overall ROP emissions reduction includes VOC emissions reductions from sources (industries, vehicles, etc.) within the Chicago ozone nonattainment area, and NO X emission reductions from sources within the State boundaries, but outside of the Chicago and Metro-East/St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas.

Although the plan's NO X reductions come from outside the nonattainment area, the reductions are nonetheless creditable toward meeting the overall required ROP reduction. (See “What are the special requirements for claiming NO X reductions?,” below). This is because downstate NO X emissions contribute to ozone formation in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area, and reducing such emissions helps the Chicago area achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

It should be noted that the Illinois ROP plan documentation refers to the term “Volatile Organic Material” (VOM) rather than VOC. The State's definition of VOM is equivalent to EPA's definition of VOC. The two terms are interchangeable when discussing volatile organic emissions. For consistency with the Act and EPA policy, we are using the term VOC in this rulemaking.

The Illinois portion of the Chicago ozone nonattainment area includes the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will, and the townships of Aux Sable and Goose Lake in Grundy County, and Oswego in Kendall County.

The post-1996 ROP plan does not create any new control requirements. Rather, it is a demonstration that existing regulations and control programs achieved a 9 percent emission reduction.

The post-1996 ROP plan refers to various emission control regulations that have contributed to achieving the required emission reduction for the Chicago area. These regulations, both Federal and State, affect a variety of industries, businesses, and, through the vehicle inspection and maintenance program, motor vehicle owners. These regulations are already federally enforceable through separate SIP revisions or through separate EPA promulgation.

The TCMs submitted with the post-1996 ROP plan are the only State ROP measures that are not already part of the federally approved SIP. We are approving these TCMs in this rulemaking action, and we discuss the TCM approval in section VII of this rulemaking.

Section 182(c)(2)(B) establishes certain elements a post-1996 ROP plan must contain for approval. These elements are: (1) An emission baseline; (2) an emission target level; (3) an emission reduction estimate to compensate for emission growth projections and to reach the ROP emission reduction goal; and (4) emission reduction estimates for the plan's control measures. Through these elements, the plan must show that the nonattainment area will achieve a 9 percent VOC emission reduction by November 15, 1999 (or its equivalent in combined VOC and NO X emission reductions).

We have issued several guidance documents for States to use in developing approvable post-1996 ROP plans. These documents address such topics as: (1) The relationship of ROP plans to other SIP elements required by the Act; (2) calculation of baseline emissions and emission target levels; (3) procedures for projecting emission growth; and (4) methodology for determining emission reduction estimates for various control measures, including federal measures.

Our January 1994, policy document, Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-Of-Progress Plan and the Attainment Demonstration (post-1996 policy), provides States with an appropriate method to calculate the emission reductions needed to meet the ROP emission reduction requirement. A complete list of ROP guidance documents is provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the March 3, 2000 proposed rulemaking (65 FR 11525) on the State's post-1996 ROP plan. The TSD for the proposed rulemaking can be obtained from the Region 5 office at the address indicated above.

If a post-1996 ROP plan relies on NO X reductions, it is subject to certain additional requirements. As noted above, under section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act, a plan can substitute NO X reductions for VOC if the resulting reduction in ozone concentrations is at least equivalent to the ozone reduction that would occur under a plan that relies only on VOC reductions. As required by section 182(c)(2)(C), we issued policy concerning the conditions for demonstrating equivalency (see “NO X Substitution Guidance,” December 1993). Our NO X substitution policy provides that a ROP plan based in part on a NO X substitution strategy must show that the sum of the creditable VOC and NO X reduction percentages (relative to 1990 baseline emissions) equal or exceed a total of 9. Moreover, the State must provide technical justification that the NO X reductions will reduce ozone concentrations within the nonattainment area.

On December 29, 1997, we issued a policy memorandum entitled, “Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS” (December 1997 policy). This policy document provides that a State included in the core part of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) domain (within the fine grid area where NO X emission reductions will be required) can claim ROP credit for NO X reductions that occur within the State's boundaries. (For more information on OTAG, see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/rto/otag ). Illinois is within the core of the OTAG domain. Consequently, the State can claim NO X reductions from outside of the Chicago ozone nonattainment area, but within the State's boundaries, for its post-1996 ROP plan, provided the State submits a technical analysis showing that NO X reductions outside of the nonattainment area will reduce ozone concentrations in the nonattainment area.

The December 1997 policy also states that a nonattainment area which has been granted a NO X waiver can still claim NO X reductions from outside the nonattainment area, but within the State's boundaries, if such reductions will reduce ozone concentrations within the nonattainment area. We granted a NO X waiver for the Chicago ozone nonattainment area on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428) and proposed a NO X waiver for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area on April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20404). NO X waivers are authorized under section 182(f) of the Act. A State can obtain a waiver to exempt an area from local NO X control requirements if it can show that local NO X reductions are not beneficial for attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Illinois made this demonstration for the Chicago ozone nonattainment area, and a NO X waiver was granted. Illinois has made a similar demonstration for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area. OTAG modeling, however, has shown that several NO X waiver areas actually benefit from NO X reductions upwind and outside of the specific local areas. Therefore, under the December 1997 policy, a State can credit NO X reductions outside a NO X waiver area, but within the State's boundaries, if the State provides a technical analysis showing that the NO X reductions will lower ozone concentrations within the nonattainment area.

To justify claiming upwind NO X reductions for ROP, Illinois submitted results of both the OTAG regional ozone modeling study, and ozone modeling done in January 1999 by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). The modeling results show that downstate NO X reductions contribute to a reduction of ozone background concentrations in the Chicago Area. These reduced background concentrations lead to reduced ozone concentrations within and downwind of the Chicago area. Illinois, therefore, satisfies the requirement set forth in the December 1997 policy that NO X reductions outside of the nonattainment area must reduce ozone concentrations within the nonattainment area to be creditable as ROP reductions.

The following tables summarize the State's post-1996 ROP calculations for determining the needed 9 percent ROP and 3 percent contingency measure emission reductions. The calculation of required emission reductions was based on a combination of VOC and NO X emission reductions. To achieve the 9 percent emission reduction, the State chose a VOC/NO X emission reduction blend of a 2 percent VOC emission reduction and a 7 percent NO X emission reduction.

Using our post-1996 policy, Illinois calculated the needed emissions reduction by taking the following steps:

(1) Determine what proportion of the 9 percent reduction is VOC and what proportion is NO X ;

(2) Establish the emission baselines for both VOC and NO X ;

(3) Calculate the emission target levels to meet the overall 9 percent reduction by 1999;

(4) Estimate the projected emission growth that would occur if no 9 percent emission reduction takes place;

(5) Subtract the projected emission level from the emission target to determine the VOC and NO X emission reduction needed, net of growth; and,

(6) Calculate the needed contingency measure reduction.

The State obtained data for developing the plan from the Chicago ozone nonattainment area 15 percent ROP Plan, EPA guidance documents, and information received from industry and public agencies.

Illinois' post-1996 ROP plan relies on both VOC and NO X reductions to meet the 9 percent reduction in ozone precursors. Under Illinois' plan, the VOC reduction is a 2 percent reduction of the VOC emissions in the Illinois portion of the Chicago nonattainment area, and the NO X reduction is a 7 percent reduction of the NO X emissions within the State, but outside of the NO X waiver areas (outside of the ozone nonattainment areas).

Under our post-1996 policy, ROP plans that rely on both VOC and NO X reductions should have separate emission baselines for VOC and NO X . The Act requires baselines to represent 1990 anthropogenic emissions on a peak ozone season weekday basis. Peak ozone season weekday emissions represent the average VOC and NO X daily emissions that occur on weekdays during the peak 3-month ozone period of June through August.

Illinois used the Chicago area's 1990 base year emission inventory as the basis for the VOC baseline. We approved the Chicago area 1990 inventory as a SIP revision on March 14, 1995 (see 60 FR 13631).

For the NO X baseline, Illinois used the 1990 statewide NO X emission inventory it submitted to EPA in response to the NO X SIP Call (see Federal Register 63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998). The NO X baseline consists of the 1990 emissions which occurred statewide, but excluding emissions from the Chicago and Metro-East/St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas. The State excluded the nonattainment area emissions from the baseline because the State is relying on NO X reductions only from the State's ozone attainment area, and because the State has an approved waiver from NO X emission controls in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area and has sought a waiver from certain NO X controls in the Metro-East/St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. The EPA proposed to approve the Metro-East/St. Louis NO X waiver on April 17, 2000 (see Federal Register 65 FR 20404, April 17, 2000). Illinois EPA's technical analysis for supporting NO X substitution shows that NO X reductions which occur in the attainment area reduces ozone concentrations in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. Therefore, Illinois' NO X baseline is consistent with the State's technical analysis submitted to justify NO X substitution in the Chicago nonattainment area post-1996 ROP plan.

The Act requires that the ROP baseline be “adjusted” to exclude emissions eliminated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated before November 15, 1990. Because these regulations were promulgated before the 1990 amendments to the Act, the Act prohibits States from claiming ROP reductions from these regulations. To achieve an accurate ROP target, however, the State must subtract the noncreditable reductions from the baseline to reflect the impact of these reductions on 1999 emissions. The resulting inventory is called the “adjusted base year inventory.”

The adjusted base year inventory under the Illinois post-1996 ROP plan is different than the adjusted inventory used under the 15 percent ROP Plan. This is because the emission reduction associated with the FMVCP program changes over time as fleet turnover occurs, i.e., old vehicles in an area are replaced with new vehicles. Illinois EPA determined the emission reduction associated with the noncreditable FMVCP and RVP programs by using our MOBILE emission factors program.

After the State establishes the adjusted base year emission inventories, the next step is to calculate the VOC and NO X emission target levels for 1999. Our post-1996 policy provides the method for calculating target levels. To calculate the VOC target, the State first identified the previous milestone target, which in this case is the 1996 target level under the 15 percent plan. From the 1996 target level, the State subtracted (1) the percent reduction required to meet the ROP requirement, and (2) the fleet turnover correction factor.

The State obtained the 1996 VOC target level from the 15 percent ROP Plan. The percent reduction used is 2 percent of the adjusted base year inventory. The fleet turnover correction factor represents the emission reduction that has occurred under the pre-1990 Act FMVCP and RVP regulations between consecutive milestone years, i.e., 1996 to 1999. Since the 1996 target level and the 2 percent ROP reduction do not factor in these reductions, the fleet turnover correction factor is necessary to accurately calculate the emission level that must be achieved by 1999.

For NO X , a 1996 target level from a 15 percent plan does not exist. Therefore, the State needs only to subtract the 7 percent adjusted emission inventory reductions, and the noncreditable NO X reductions from the pre-1990 Act FMVCP program, from the 1990 adjusted base year emission inventory. No fleet correction factor is necessary when calculating the NO X target this way.

To account for source emission growth between 1990 and 1999, the State must develop projected emission inventories for VOC and NO X . The projected emission inventories represent what emissions would be expected in 1999 if no post-1996 ROP control measures had been implemented.

The State established the projected emission inventories for point, area, and nonroad source categories by taking the 1990 emission inventories and applying either EPA growth factors, or State justified growth factors. Projected vehicle emissions were established using the MOBILE model. The projected emission inventory for NO X is consistent with the emission inventory data which the State submitted to us in response to the NO X SIP call.

According to the State's calculations, a 152.90 TPD VOC emission reduction is needed in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area, and a 242.52 TPD NO X emission reduction is needed in the Illinois ozone attainment areas to meet the 9 percent ROP requirement.

Consistent with guidance provided in the General Preamble, Illinois determined the emission reduction needed to meet the contingency measure requirement by multiplying 3 percent of the 1990 adjusted base year VOC emissions. Based on this calculation, the needed contingency measure reduction for the Chicago nonattainment area is 31.11 TPD of VOC.

Under section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act, emission reductions claimed for ROP must be creditable to the extent that the reductions have actually occurred before the applicable ROP milestone date, i.e., by November 15, 1999.

To meet this requirement, our policy provides that all credited emission reductions must be real, permanent, and enforceable. In addition, the plan's control measures must be adopted and implemented before November 15, 1999.

Post-1996 plans must also adequately document the methods used to calculate the emission reduction for each control measure. Our policy under the General Preamble provides that, at a minimum, the methods should meet the following four principles: (1) Emission reductions from control measures must be quantifiable; (2) control measures must be enforceable; (3) interpretation of the control measures must be replicable; and, (4) control measures must be accountable.

Section 182(b)(1)(D) of the Act places limits on what control measures States can include in ROP plans. All permanent and enforceable control measures occurring after 1990 are creditable with the following exceptions: (1) FMVCP requirements promulgated by January 1, 1990; (2) RVP regulations promulgated by November 15, 1990; (3) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) “Fix-Up” regulations required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Act; and (4) Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program “Fix-Ups” as required under section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act.

a. Title IV Acid Rain Power Plant Controls. Under title IV of the Clean Air Act, certain power plants are required to limit NO X emissions to reduce acid rain. These NO X reductions, in turn, benefit the Chicago area in dealing with its ozone nonattainment problem.

Phase I of the acid rain regulation began on January 1, 1996, and Phase II began January 2000. Illinois is claiming credit for NO X control measures that certain power plants have implemented to meet the Federal acid rain rules.

The power plants that Illinois is claiming NO X reductions from are the following:

Baldwin 3, Vermillion 1-2, Hennepin 2, and Joppa 1-6 are subject to Phase I NO X emission rates under the Federal acid rain rules. Powerton 5-6 and Kincaid 1-2 were required to change to low-sulfur coal to meet sulfur dioxide limitations under the Federal acid rain rules; low-sulfur coal has reduced NO X emission rates at these plants.

Baldwin 1-2, and Edwards 2-3 are subject to the acid rain Phase II NO X emission limitations, which took effect January 2000. NO X reductions from these sources are creditable because the power plants actually implemented control measures to meet the Phase II requirements prior to November 15, 1999.

The State determined emission reductions using OTAG data, as well as data from Continuous Emission Monitors (CEM) at the plants.

b. 1999 Cold Cleaning Degreasing. This rule establishes vapor pressure standards for cold cleaning degreasing solvents sold or used in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. Cold cleaning degreasing takes place at auto repair shops, car dealerships, machine shops and other metal fabrication, and manufacturing businesses. Cold cleaning degreasers typically consist of a holding tank containing solvent, connecting hoses, and a small vat where components are sprayed and brushed clean. The rule regulates both the suppliers and users of cold cleaning degreasing solvents in the nonattainment area. Beginning March 15, 1999, the rule limits the vapor pressure of solvent to 2.0 millimeters of mercury (0.038 pounds per square inch) measured at 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit).

c. Stepan Batch Processes. On April 2, 1996, we approved Illinois' batch process RACT rule as a revision to the SIP. Under the rule, the process vents at batch operations must be controlled with a reduction efficiency of 90 percent (or down to a VOC concentration of no more than 20 parts per million volume). Illinois had claimed credit for the rule under the 15 percent plan. At the time of rulemaking on the 15 percent plan, however, we did not allow credit for controls at Stepan Company's Milldale facility because of uncertainty whether the controls at the facility were implemented before or after 1990. As part of the December 17, 1999 post-1996 ROP amended submittal, Illinois submitted documentation showing that the controls were implemented after 1990. Therefore, in this rulemaking, we are approving credit for the emission reductions which occurred at Stepan Company. These emission reductions were ultimately not needed for approval of Illinois' 15 percent ROP plan, and, therefore, are creditable toward the post-1996 ROP plan requirements.

d. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. On November 23, 1998 (63 FR 64628), we approved Illinois' section 111(d)/129 State Plan for municipal solid waste landfills. The State plan includes regulations requiring the control of Non-Methane Organic Compound (NMOC) emissions at existing landfills that have a design capacity threshold equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) measured in mass units and 2.5 million cubic meters measured in volume units, and that have an annual emissions equal to or greater than 50 Mg/year of NMOC gases. The rule adopts our March 12, 1996, Emission Guidelines for this source category (see 61 FR 9905). Subject landfills must install a well-designed and well-operated collection and control system to reduce NMOC gases. A portion of NMOC is VOC, and therefore landfill controls are creditable toward the ROP plan. In the Chicago ozone nonattainment area, there are twelve landfills which have installed and are operating the required gas collection and control systems pursuant to construction permits.

e. Coke Oven By-Product Plants. This Federal National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) applies to all furnace and foundry coke oven by-product recovery plants. The NESHAP requires that process vessels and tar storage tanks in furnace and foundry coke by-product recovery plants be enclosed and that emissions be ducted to an enclosed point in the by-product recovery process where they are to be recovered or destroyed. This requirement is based on the use of a gas blanketing system. The same requirement also applies to storage tanks for benzene, benzene-toluene-xylene mixtures, and light-oil in furnace coke by-product recovery plants. The standard also calls for visual inspections and monitoring (leak detection and repair) as well as annual maintenance inspections.

It should be noted that Illinois originally claimed credit in the December 18, 1997, post-1996 ROP plan submittal for the Emission Reduction Marketing System (ERMS), a new State regulation establishing a VOC cap and trade requirement for Chicago area stationary sources. The ERMS program, however, has been delayed beyond November 15, 1999. Therefore, Illinois is not claiming credit in the final post-1996 ROP plan for ERMS. Nonetheless, Illinois EPA plans to rely on the ERMS program in future ROP plans.

a. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Program. The Act requires Illinois to establish an enhanced vehicle I/M program in the Chicago area to achieve a higher emission reduction than the State's original I/M program. Enhanced I/M covers more vehicles in operation in the fleet and employs more effective techniques for finding high emitting vehicles. The new program also has additional features to ensure that all vehicles are tested properly and are effectively repaired.

We approved the Illinois' enhanced I/M program for the Chicago ozone nonattainment area on February 22, 1999 (64 FR 8517). The State began testing vehicles under the new program on February 1, 1999.

A single contractor, Envirotest, Inc., operates a test-only centralized network for inspections and re-inspection. The I/M contractor has constructed or retrofitted all the emission test sites required under the State I/M contract.

The Illinois I/M program requires coverage of all 1968 and newer gasoline-powered light-duty passenger cars and light-duty trucks up to 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). The program requires all applicable 1981 and newer vehicles to meet an IM240 exhaust test (a test that simulates actual driving conditions using a dynamometer). These vehicles must also undergo a gas cap check to reduce evaporative emissions. All applicable 1968 through 1980 vehicles will be subject to a basic idle emission exhaust test. The frequency of the test is biennial, with the first four years of a new vehicle excluded.

Due to the delay in implementation of the enhanced I/M program, we requested Illinois EPA to revise its original VOC emission reduction estimate from 30.10 TPD to 15 TPD, which represents only the level of emission reduction that occurred between February 1, 1999, and November 15, 1999. Since the 15 TPD reduction does not reflect the program's full cutpoints, and thus, emission reduction potential, additional emission reduction credit will be available for use in future ROP plans.

b. Phase I Reformulated Gasoline. Beginning January 1, 1995, EPA regulations require only reformulated gasoline to be sold in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. Reformulated gasoline is specially designed to result in less VOC emissions occurring from motor vehicle operation and gasoline evaporation. Illinois ran our MOBILE model and determined that Phase I of the reformulated gasoline requirement achieved 65.5 TPD of VOC emission reductions in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area in 1999.

c. Post-1994 Tier 1 Vehicle Emission Rates. Pursuant to section 202 of the Act, we promulgated new standards that tighten emission control requirements for passenger cars and light-duty trucks, called “Tier 1” standards. The standards, fully effective in 1996, are approximately twice as stringent as pre-1990 vehicle standards.

Tier 1 standards require both VOC and NO X emission reductions. Illinois is claiming VOC reductions from Tier 1 that occur within the Chicago ozone nonattainment area, and NO X reductions that occur within the Illinois ozone attainment areas.

d. 1992 Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Amendments. In 1992, Illinois added improvements to its original I/M program as a result of an agreement resolving a lawsuit between Wisconsin and EPA. Illinois added a tamper check and two-speed idle test to the basic I/M program in the Chicago metropolitan area. The State also increased the coverage of the program over the Chicago metropolitan area. Illinois fully implemented these changes to the I/M program in 1992.

e. Federal Gasoline Detergent Additive. Beginning January 1, 1995, Federal regulations require that gasoline sold nationwide must contain additives to prevent accumulation of deposits in engines and fuel systems. Preventing such deposits maintains the efficiency of engine systems and reduces VOC emissions resulting from engine efficiency degradation.

f. Federal Non-Road Small Engine Standards. Illinois is claiming emission reduction credit from two Federal rules which affect gasoline nonroad engines, the 1995 Federal emission standards for nonroad engines at 25 horsepower (hp) and below, and the 1996 marine gasoline engine standards.

The nonroad engine standards, beginning in model year 1997, primarily affects two stroke and four stroke lawn and garden equipment, and light commercial, construction, and logging equipment. The marine engine rule applies to marine spark-ignition engines for outboards, personal watercraft, and jet boats, beginning in model year 1998. Illinois EPA estimated the emission reduction for these standards through the use of our guidance document, “Future Nonroad Emission Reduction Credits for Court-Ordered Nonroad Standards,” dated November 28, 1994.

The State also claims an emission reduction for the impact the reformulated gasoline program has on nonroad engines. Our guidance document, “VOC Emission Benefits for Nonroad Equipment with the Use of Federal Phase I Reformulated Gasoline,” dated August 18, 1993, provides the methodology for determining the emission reduction impact of reformulated gasoline on nonroad engines and was used by Illinois to determine the emission reduction credit for this control measure.

g. Federal Non-Road Heavy-Duty Engine Standards. In 1994, we promulgated national NO X emission standards for large nonroad Compression Ignition (CI) engines at 50 hp and above. Such engines include farm tractors, bulldozers, and forklifts. This standard is the “Tier 1” standard for CI engines at or above 50 hp. Implementation of the standard began January 1, 1996. Illinois is claiming credit for the NO X reductions this regulation achieves in the Illinois ozone attainment area.

h. Clean-Fuel Fleet Vehicle Program. The State has a Clean-Fuel Fleet (CFF) rule which requires certain vehicle fleets in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area to purchase vehicles with tighter emission standards than conventional vehicles. The program affects fleets with ten or more vehicles which can be centrally fueled. Beginning with model year 1999, covered fleets must ensure that a certain percentage of new vehicle acquisitions are certified to meet EPA's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) emission standards. In model year 1999, 30 percent of new light-duty vehicles and 50 percent of heavy-duty vehicles acquired by covered fleets must be certified LEVs.

i. Energy Policy Act. The National Energy Policy Act (EPAct) was enacted in October 1992. EPAct mandates implementation (use) of Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFVs) in Federal, State, and utility company fleets. EPAct requires that 25 percent of new vehicle purchases by Federal fleets, 10 percent of new vehicle purchases by State fleets, and 30 percent of new vehicle purchases by utility fleets must be AFVs beginning in 1996. Illinois EPA estimated that, by 1996, 2,000 AFVs were operating in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area.

j. TCMs. See Part VII of this Federal Register document, “EPA's approval of the TCMs in the post-1996 ROP plan,” for a description of the TCMs for which Illinois is claiming credit to meet the 9 percent reduction requirement.

We have issued several policy documents, listed in the TSD for the April 17, 2000 proposed rulemaking, which provide assumptions for States to use in quantifying emission reductions. We have also developed the MOBILE model for the States to calculate emission reductions from mobile sources.

The State appropriately used our policy documents and MOBILE model for calculating emission reductions. Illinois obtained the necessary data for quantifying the source baselines and emission reductions from its 1990 emission inventory, OTAG inventory submittal, CEM data (for acid rain reductions), permit information, and from surveying affected industries. Where Illinois had to develop its own assumptions regarding emission reductions, the assumptions were adequately justified based on existing data.

It should be noted that Illinois is claiming post-1996 ROP credit for mobile and nonroad source measures that were part of the 15 percent ROP Plan, including Tier 1, I/M expansion, Phase I reformulated gasoline, nonroad small engine standards, Federal detergent additive, and EPAct. No double-counting of emission reductions, however, has occurred. Unlike other 15 percent control measures, the State did not consider these measures when calculating the 1999 projected growth inventory. The State treated these reductions separately because the impacts of these measures change over time due to fleet turnover.

As noted in section IV of this final rulemaking, the State calculated the projected growth in emissions assuming no post-1996 ROP emission reductions in place, and subtracted the 1999 target from the projected emissions to find the needed reduction net-of-growth. The impact on the plan would be the same if Illinois factored in the above control measures in the 1999 projected growth inventory and had not treated these measures as creditable post-1996 ROP reductions. Therefore, Illinois can claim reductions from these measures as legitimate post-1996 ROP reductions.

The following tables summarize the State's VOC and NO X reduction claims for the post-1996 ROP control measures, and the amount of reductions we find acceptable.

This section is organized as follows:

EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.24(6) “Dispensing of Vehicle Fuel” and incorporating this rule into the Massachusetts SIP. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted the revised rule to EPA for parallel processing on August 9, 2000 and submitted the final version of the rule on September 11, 2000. EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Massachusetts' revised Stage II rule on August 21, 2000 (65 FR 50669).

In order to justify the level of emission reductions claimed in its SIP, Massachusetts added the following new provisions to its Stage II rule: (1) A provision explicitly requiring the installation of CARB (California Air Resources Board) approved Stage II systems; (2) a provision requiring annual Stage II system compliance testing and certification; and (3) a provision explicitly requiring weekly visual inspections of the Stage II system components. In addition, a provision addressing the direct refueling of a motor vehicle from a tank truck is included in Massachusetts' revised Stage II rule. This provision was adopted by DEP and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision in 1995 but has not yet been approved into the Massachusetts SIP. Each of the four new provisions are discussed in more detail in EPA's NPR.

EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised Stage II rule because the revisions will significantly improve the enforceability and emission reductions associated with the rule. Previously, the resources DEP devoted to Stage II enforcement and the wording of the existing rule called into question the Stage II reductions assumed in the Massachusetts SIP. With the revised Stage II rule, along with the resources DEP is currently devoting to Stage II enforcement, EPA believes that the assumed level of SIP credit will be achieved.

EPA received two comment letters pursuant to the publication of its proposed approval of Massachusetts' revised Stage II rule. Comments were submitted by ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company and by the Massachusetts Petroleum Council. A summary of the comments received and EPA's response is presented below.

Comment #1: ExxonMobil commented that the requirements for facility compliance certification should be more specific in outlining who should certify the various operating and testing requirements, noting that their company owns, and directly operates with company employees, certain retail stores but also leases certain stores to independent dealer/operators who directly operate these stores with their own employees.

Response: The revised 310 CMR 7.24(6)(c)(8) states, “Any certification submitted * * * shall be signed by an individual who is a responsible official regarding the Stage II system * * *. ” The rule, however, is silent as to who is the appropriate responsible official. As stated in the response to comments document  1 prepared by the DEP, the DEP intends to leave the identification of the responsible official to be worked out between each facility's owner, operator, lessee, or controller on a case-by-case basis. The DEP document also notes that the responsible official's compliance certification may rely, as necessary, on the inquiry of other parties who may have responsibility for various aspects of a facility's compliance program. Specifically, 310 CMR 7.24(c)(8)(a) requires the responsible official to certify that “I personally examined the foregoing and am familiar with the information contained in this document and all the attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those persons immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the information is true, accurate and complete.” (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, in response to industry's concerns, DEP added a provision to the final rule regarding the person immediately responsible for obtaining certification information. Specifically, 310 CMR 7.24(c)(9) states, “Any person immediately responsible for obtaining information referenced in 310 CMR 7.24(6)(c)(8)(a) who knowingly and willfully makes false, inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading statements pursuant to any certification or notification required under 310 CMR 7.24(6), may be in violation of 310 CMR 7.24(6).” These provisions should address the concern that, in some cases, the person providing the certification may not be the person immediately responsible for obtaining all of the information.

Comment #2: Both commenters called into question the DEP's basis for adopting revisions to its Stage II vapor recovery regulation.

Response: EPA believes there was a justifiable basis for DEP proceeding with revisions to its Stage II rule. Previously, EPA raised concerns regarding the lack of Stage II enforcement oversight by the DEP and the high rate of non-compliance by facilities. Specifically, the DEP was not conducting annual inspections of each Stage II subject facility as recommended in EPA's Stage II enforcement guidance. 2 Also, as indicated in DEP's background document, 3 DEP conducted inspections of 122 facilities in 1997 and found that only 54% of the inspected facilities were correctly operated and maintained. Clearly the DEP needed to take action to ensure that the anticipated Stage II emissions reductions would be achieved. Additionally, it is not disputed that the measures in this rule, taken as a whole, will reduce emissions associated with activities covered by the rule, and that the amended rule will be more enforceable. Disputes about the adequacy of the state's substantive basis for adopting these rules are matters for the state. Procedurally, the rule submission appears sound. Therefore, the comment does not provide EPA with suitable justification for rejecting a state submission that enhances the SIP's stringency.

EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised Stage II rule because the revisions will significantly improve the enforceability and emission reductions associated with the rule. With the revised Stage II rule, along with the resources DEP is currently devoting to Stage II enforcement, EPA believes that the assumed level of SIP credit will be achieved.

EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.24(6) “Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel” and incorporating this rule into the Massachusetts SIP.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to the State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 16, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

This section presents EPA's most recent acceptable listing decisions for substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning, non-aerosol solvent cleaning, and aerosol solvents and propellants sectors. For copies of the full list of SNAP decisions in all industrial sectors, contact the EPA Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800) 296-1996. You also can find a complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations at EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/chron.html.

The sections below present a detailed discussion of the acceptability decisions EPA is making today. The table summarizing today's listing decisions is in Appendix A. The comments contained in the table in Appendix A provide additional information, but are not legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. Thus, adherence to recommendations in the comments section of the table is not mandatory for use of a substitute, unless the comments refer to applicable regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, EPA strongly encourages users to use these substitutes in a manner consistent with the recommendations in the comments section. In many instances, the comments simply refer to standard operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of these recommendations, if adopted, would not require significant changes in existing operating practices for the affected industry. In addition, such recommendations should not be considered comprehensive with respect to other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute.

Hydrofluoroether 7100 is acceptable for use as a secondary heat transfer fluid in new equipment for not-in-kind replacements of systems using:

HFE-7100 does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It has a 4.1-year atmospheric lifetime and a global warming potential (GWP) of 390 over a 100-year time horizon. These values are lower than the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of the substances HFE-7100 would be replacing.

HFE-7100 is non-flammable.

HFE-7100 exhibits low toxicity, with a workplace environmental exposure limit (WEEL) of 750 ppm established by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

Hydrofluoroether 7200 is acceptable for use as a secondary heat transfer fluid in new equipment for not-in-kind replacements of systems using:

HFE-7200 does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It has a 0.9 year atmospheric lifetime and a GWP of 55 over a 100-year time horizon. These values are much lower than the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of the substances HFE-7200 would be replacing.

The flammability range in air is 2.4-12.4%. HFE-7200 has no flashpoint.

The manufacturer's recommended exposure guideline for HFE-7200 is 200 ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average. EPA expects HFE-7200 users to follow all recommendations specified in the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). The Agency also expects that users of HFE-7200 will adhere to any acceptable exposure limits set by any voluntary consensus standards organization, including the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs) or the AIHA's WEELs.

The chemical blends submitted to EPA with the unregistered trade names of FOR12A and FOR12B are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in the following end-uses:

The blends do not contain any significant ozone-depleting chemical, but do contain constituents with a GWP. The GWP for the FOR12A blend is approximately 1100 and the GWP for the FOR12B blend is approximately 1000. These values are lower than the GWP of the substances that FOR12A and FOR12B would be replacing. The contribution of these constituents to global warming will be minimized in each end-use through the implementation of the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act. This section prohibits venting or release of substitutes for class I and class II ozone depleting substances used in refrigeration and requires proper disposal of these substances, such as recycling or recovery.

Fractionation and flammability tests by the submitters have determined that although a constituent of each blend is flammable, FOR12A and FOR12B as blended are not flammable. Further testing has shown that FOR12A and FOR 12B do not become flammable after leakage.

Both blends have low toxicity. Only one of the constituents of the blends exhibits toxicity, and this substance has an 8-hour acceptable exposure limit of 150 to 170 ppm.

NU-22, an HFC blend, is acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22 in new and retrofit applications in the following end-uses:

The blend has no ozone-depleting potential. The blend contains constituents exhibiting GWPs, with the highest GWP being 1600. This value is lower than the GWP of the substance that NU-22 would be replacing. The contribution of this blend to global warming will be minimized in each end-use through the implementation of the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act. This section prohibits venting or release of substitutes for class I and class II ozone depleting substances used in refrigeration and requires proper disposal of these substances, such as recycling or recovery.

Fractionation and flammability tests by the submitter have determined that although one component of this blend is flammable, this refrigerant blend is not flammable.

This blend's constituents are all non-toxic.

SP34E is acceptable for use as a substitute for CFC-12 in the following end uses:

SP34E is acceptable for use as a substitute for CFC-12, subject to use conditions for motor vehicle air conditioning (retrofit and new).

SP34E is an HFC refrigerant with additives. Solpower, the submitter, has claimed the composition is confidential business information.

Regulations regarding recycling and prohibiting venting issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend.

On October 16, 1996, (61 FR 54029), EPA promulgated a final rule that prospectively applied certain conditions on the use of any refrigerant used as a substitute for CFC-12 in motor vehicle air conditioning systems (Appendix D of subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). That rule provided that EPA would list new refrigerants in future notices of acceptability. Therefore, the use of SP34E as a CFC-12 substitute in motor vehicle air conditioning systems must follow the standard conditions imposed on previous refrigerants, including:

You must use the following fittings to use SP34E in motor vehicle air conditioning systems:

When using this refrigerant, you would need to use a filter dryer appropriate for use with R-134a. The submitter claims that SP34E is a replacement for CFC-12 that allows the use of mineral oil instead of synthetic oil. EPA has not evaluated any claims about the effectiveness of SP34E or whether it may be used with mineral oil. You may find materials in Docket A-91-42 concerning these claims.

SP34E has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero. Some of the constituents of SP34E have GWPs, with the highest GWP over 100 years being 1300. This value is lower than the GWP of the substance that SP34E would be replacing. The longest-lived constituent has an atmospheric lifetime of 14.6 years. The contribution of this blend to global warming will be minimized through requirements under sections 608(c)(2) and 609 of the Clean Air Act. Section 608(c)(2) prohibits venting or release of substitutes for class I and class II ozone depleting substances used in refrigeration and requires proper disposal of these substances, such as recycling or recovery. Section 609 requires refrigerant recycling and training and certification for people repairing or servicing motor vehicle air conditioning systems.

Some constituents of the blend are flammable. Flammability testing by an independent laboratory has determined that SP34E as blended is not flammable. SP34E has no flash point.

SP34E exhibits low toxicity. Two of its constituents have manufacturer acceptable exposure limits (AELs) of 1000 ppm over an 8-hour time-weighted average. For the remaining constituent, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a permissible exposure limit of 1000 ppm over an 8-hour time-weighted average. SP34E was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The April 11, 2000 notice of acceptability at 65 FR 19327 incorrectly said that EPA was approving “furan” as a substitute for CFC-114 for use in uranium isotope separation processing (retrofit uses). The proper name of the substitute approved for this purpose is perfluoro (oxacyclopentane). It may also be called octafluorotetrahydrofuran or furan, octafluorotetrahydro. Its formula is c-C 4 F 8 O. Perfluoro (oxacyclopentane) is a cyclic perfluoroether (PFE), with similar atmospheric properties to those of perfluorocarbons (PFCs): long atmospheric lifetime and high global warming potential. Therefore, the same care as recommended for PFCs should be applied in handling this cyclic PFE in order to minimize emissions.

Methyl formate is acceptable as a substitute for CFCs and HCFCs in the following end-uses:

Methyl formate has no ODP and very low or zero global warming potential (GWP). Users should be aware that methyl formate is a volatile organic compound (VOC) and may be subject to state or federal requirements developed under Title I of the Clean Air Act. Also, because methyl formate is considered hazardous, spills and disposal should be handled in accordance with requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Methyl formate is flammable and should be handled with proper precautions. Use of methyl formate will require safe handling and shipping as prescribed by OSHA and DOT (for example, using personal safety equipment and following requirements for shipping hazardous materials at 49 CFR parts 170 through 173).

Methyl formate is toxic and should be handled with proper precautions. Use of methyl formate will require safe handling and shipping as prescribed by OSHA and DOT (for example, using personal safety equipment, observing permissible exposure limits, and following requirements for shipping hazardous materials at 49 CFR parts 170 through 173). OSHA established a permissible exposure limit for methyl formate of 100 ppm for a time-weighted average over an eight-hour work shift. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists recommend a 15-minute short term exposure limit (STEL) of 150 ppm.

Hydrofluoroether 7100 is acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-141b and HCFC-22 in metals cleaning, precision cleaning, and electronics cleaning applications. Hydrofluoroether 7100 is also known as HFE-7100; C 4 F 9 OCH 3 ; C 6 F 9 OH 5 ; methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal; and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether. EPA previously found HFE-7100 acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in metals cleaning, precision cleaning, and electronics cleaning applications (61 FR 47015).

HFE-7100 does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It has a 4.1-year atmospheric lifetime and a global warming potential (GWP) of 390 over a 100-year time horizon. These values are lower than the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of the substances HFE-7100 would be replacing.

HFE-7100 is non-flammable.

HFE-7100 exhibits low toxicity, with a workplace environmental exposure limit (WEEL) of 750 ppm established by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

Hydrofluoroether 7200 is acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-141b and HCFC-22 in metals cleaning, precision cleaning, and electronics cleaning applications. Hydrofluoroether 7200 is also known as HFE-7200; C 4 F 9 OC 2 H 5 ; C 5 F 10 H 2 ; and ethoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal. EPA previously found HFE-7200 acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in metals cleaning, precision cleaning, and electronics cleaning applications (64 FR 68039).

HFE-7200 does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It has a 0.9 year atmospheric lifetime and a GWP of 55 over a 100-year time horizon. These values are much lower than the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of the substances HFE-7200 would be replacing.

The flammability range in air is 2.4-12.4%. HFE-7200 has no flashpoint.

The manufacturer's recommended exposure guideline for HFE-7200 is 200 ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average. EPA expects HFE-7200 users to follow all recommendations specified in the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). The Agency also expects that users of HFE-7200 will adhere to any acceptable exposure limits set by any voluntary consensus standards organization, including the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs) or the AIHA's WEELs.

Heptafluorocyclopentane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in precision cleaning, electronics cleaning, and metals cleaning applications within the non-aerosol solvent cleaning sector. Heptafluorocyclopentane is also known as HFCPA and C 5 H 3 F 7 , and by the trade name Zeorara-H®.

HFCPA is a hydrofluorocarbon, and thus has no ozone-depleting potential. The GWP is 250 over a 100-year time horizon, and the atmospheric lifetime is 1.8 years. These values are either lower or comparable to the GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes of the substances HFCPA would be replacing.

HFCPA has no flash point below its boiling point.

Although this acceptability determination is not subject to any use conditions or narrowed use restrictions, EPA expects users to adhere to the manufacturer's recommended exposure guideline of 123 ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average, with a ceiling of 500 ppm.

HFC-365mfc is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in precision cleaning, electronics cleaning, and metals cleaning applications within the non-aerosol solvent cleaning sector. HFC-365mfc is a halogenated alkane.

HFC-365mfc contains no chlorine or bromine and does not contribute to ozone depletion. The GWP is 790 over a 100-year time horizon and the atmospheric lifetime is 10.2 years. These values are either lower or comparable to the GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes of the substances HFC-365mfc would be replacing.

HFC-365mfc has no flash point. The lower and upper flammability limits are 3.8% and 13.3%, respectively.

The submitting manufacturer has set a preliminary acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 500 ppm.

Hydrofluoroether 7100 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 and HCFC-141b as a solvent in aerosol products. Hydrofluoroether 7100 is also known as HFE-7100; C 4 F 9 OCH 3 ; C 6 F 9 OH 5 ; methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal; and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether. EPA previously found HFE-7100 acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in aerosol solvents (61 FR 47015).

HFE-7100 does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It has a 4.1-year atmospheric lifetime and a global warming potential (GWP) of 390 over a 100-year time horizon. These are lower than the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of the substances HFE-7100 would be replacing.

HFE-7100 is non-flammable.

HFE-7100 exhibits low toxicity, with a workplace environmental exposure limit (WEEL) of 750 ppm established by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

Hydrofluoroether 7200 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, and HCFC-141b as a solvent in aerosol products. Hydrofluoroether 7200 is also known as HFE-7200; C 4 F 9 OC 2 H 5 ; C 5 F 10 H 2 ; and ethoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal. EPA previously found HFE-7200 acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in aerosol solvents (64 FR 68039).

HFE-7200 does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It has a 0.9 year atmospheric lifetime and a GWP of 55 over a 100-year time horizon. These values are much lower than the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of the substances HFE-7200 would be replacing.

The flammability range in air is 2.4-12.4%. HFE-7200 has no flashpoint.

The manufacturer's recommended exposure guideline for HFE-7200 is 200 ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average. EPA expects HFE-7200 users to follow all recommendations specified in the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). The Agency also expects that users of HFE-7200 will adhere to any acceptable exposure limits set by any voluntary consensus standards organization, including the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs) or the AIHA's WEELs.

HFC-365mfc is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b as an aerosol solvent. HFC-365mfc is a halogenated alkane.

HFC-365mfc contains no chlorine or bromine and does not contribute to ozone depletion. The GWP is 790 over a 100-year time horizon and the atmospheric lifetime is 10.2 years. These values are either lower or comparable to the GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes of the substances HFC-365mfc would be replacing.

HFC-365mfc has no flash point. The lower and upper flammability limits are 3.8% and 13.3%, respectively.

The submitting manufacturer has set a preliminary acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 500 ppm.

EPA requests information on the refrigerants Enviro-Safe, Red Tek, Maxi-Frig, ES-12A, and Auto Cool. EPA has received numerous inquiries regarding the SNAP acceptability of the above refrigerants for use in motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs). Materials disseminated through mailings and the internet (Air Docket A-91-42, item IX-B-60) have made consumers question whether the products listed above are acceptable substitutes under the SNAP program for CFC-12 (R12 or freon) and other ozone-depleting CFC-12 substitutes. Under Section 612(e) of the CAA, any person who produces a substitute for a CFC is required to submit information to EPA at least 90 days before the substitute is introduced into interstate commerce. The refrigerants listed above have not been submitted to EPA for review under the SNAP program. Therefore, the Agency believes that they cannot be sold as replacements for CFC-12 or other ozone-depleting CFC substitutes in MVACs.

Additionally, based on advertising materials, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and independent laboratory testing (Air Docket A-91-42, item IX-B-60), EPA believes the refrigerants listed above may be flammable hydrocarbon-based blends. In June 1995, flammable refrigerants were listed as unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in MVACs because a comprehensive risk assessment on the use of flammable refrigerants had not been submitted to EPA (60 FR 31092). EPA welcomes the submission of such a risk assessment. However, until EPA receives sufficient information on the potential risks of flammable refrigerants in MVACs, all flammable refrigerants are unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 and ozone-depleting freon substitutes in MVACs, unless specifically listed as acceptable. Consumers should also be aware that the following 19 states ban the use of flammable refrigerants in MVACs: Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, and the District of Columbia. For further information about flammable refrigerants, see EPA's web site (http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/snap/hc12alng.html).

EPA requests information on the composition and the flammability of Enviro-Safe, Red Tek, Maxi-Frig, ES-12A, and Auto Cool. We also would welcome any formal risk assessment on these refrigerants.

In the non-aerosol solvent cleaning sector, EPA has historically applied SNAP review only to large industrial cleaning applications, including cold cleaning and vapor degreasing and defluxing operations, where ozone-depleting substances have been historically used. Within industrial cleaning, the three main applications that in the past used ozone-depleting solvents are precision cleaning, electronics cleaning, or general metals cleaning, and solvents used in those applications are subject to SNAP review. 1 The preamble language to the original SNAP rule of March 18, 1994 provided EPA's interpretation that its SNAP regulation excludes some applications within metals, precision and electronics cleaning. Specifically, the preamble stated that:

• Bearer media (e.g., substitutes for CFC-113 in depositing lubricants on medical catheters);

• Plasma etching;

• Mold release agents (for nonaerosol applications);

• Motor vehicle air conditioning flushing;

• Hand wiping or maintenance cleaning with a non-aerosol spray;

• Dry cleaning of textiles;

• Substitutes for CFC-11 (although note that EPA reviews substitutes to CFC-11 when it is used as an aerosol propellant); and

• Flushing of oxygen systems.

There are a wide variety of cleaning operations. Some of these operations are more emissive, and present more risks to workers handling the equipment, than others. EPA is concerned that for certain solvents reviewed under the SNAP program, it may not make sense to determine that use of that compound is acceptable without conditions or restrictions, or alternatively that it is unacceptable, in both manual and machine cleaning operations. EPA is considering pursuing the use of certain narrowed use restrictions on SNAP acceptability decisions for manual metals, electronics, or precision cleaning. We believe that this would better implement the intent of the Clean Air Act Section 612 mandate to evaluate the overall health and environmental risks associated with potential substitutes to ozone-depleting substances.

Because of the emissive nature of many manual cleaning operations and relatively high volumes of ozone-depleting solvents and their substitutes used in manual cleaning, 2 EPA is now considering expanding the scope of SNAP review in the non-aerosol solvent cleaning sector to include one or more of the manual cleaning applications above for metals cleaning, electronics cleaning, or precision cleaning. 3 In most manual cleaning operations, solvent use is not contained within equipment, and the potential for soil and groundwater contamination is a major issue. Contamination is also a concern where solvents are allowed to fall on concrete or other porous floors. In addition to solvents causing soil and groundwater contamination, the evaporation of solvents often results in atmospheric damage. Many solvents used in manual cleaning are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contribute to ground-level ozone pollution. In addition, a significant number of solvents contribute to global warming and/or to stratospheric ozone depletion. Human health risk is another concern: cleaning manually rather than with automated processes will more likely result in significant worker exposures to solvents, some of which have been assigned, either by manufacturers, governmental agencies, or voluntary standard-setting organizations, relatively low exposure limits due to their potential short-term or long-term toxicity. Other potential hazards to workers from manual cleaning include skin absorption of solvents, contact dermatitis, contact burns, exposure to flammable vapors, and exposure to compounds that may react with chemicals from other processes.

Manual cleaning occurs in electronic and precision cleaning as well as in metals cleaning. Manual cleaning encompasses a diverse set of cleaning operations. It can involve organic solvents, water-based cleaners, impingement cleaning, and/or mechanical cleaning. It is generally, but not always, cold cleaning (i.e., cleaning where the removal of soils is accomplished by solvents, solvent blends, or water-based cleaners that are at room temperature or are otherwise below their boiling points). Sometimes the applications are small-scale; in some applications, the part to be cleaned may be several stories high. Manual cleaning may be one or a few steps of an overall cleaning process that involves hundreds or thousands of cleaning steps. Techniques of manual cleaning include:

• Non-automated wiping, swabbing, scraping, sanding, brushing, pressure-washing or abrasively blasting surfaces with a cloth, swab, brush, sponge, pad or other implement that is moistened with solvent or other cleaner, manually applying the solvent or other cleaner directly to surfaces to agitate the surface soils, and then wiping, swabbing, brushing or pressure-washing the surfaces;

• Submerging parts in a solution that includes water, solvents and/or surfactants (this may include ultrasonic cleaning); and

• Using spraying equipment, whether the spray is from an aerosol can, other pressurized can, or non-pressurized container (such as a pump).

Swabs are generally used in specific spots, wipers can cover a larger specific area, and sprays are used over a more general area. Manual cleaning can be performed with either aqueous or solvent-based cleaning fluids or sprays, and includes the following operations:

• Spot cleaning,

• Cleaning large metal surfaces such as milking machines and other tanks and vessels,

• Cleaning small batches of parts, and

• Cleaning articles such as medical examination instruments, optical instruments, labware or circuit boards, and process equipment.

• Removal of paints, mineral deposits, dirt and oils during the overhauling, repairing, or rebuilding of automotive parts, machinery parts or instruments,

• Removal of residual rosin flux during the manufacture and service of electronics assemblies,

• Removal of rosin flux, oil, dirt, and mineral deposits during the repair of heavy-use military assemblies,

• Removal of burnt-on carbonized and/or caramelized oil during the repair of compressors after burnout,

• Removal of flux, oils, polishing compounds and fingerprints from large, critical aerospace components,

• Removal of oils, fluxes and fingerprints from high-value, critical biomedical devices, and

• Removal of residue polishing compounds in precision optics and in semiconductor manufacturing wafer fabrication.

EPA has previously regulated manual cleaning with solvents in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under § 112(b) of the Act. The September 1, 1995 NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Reworking Facilities defines “hand-wipe cleaning operation” as “the removal of contaminants such as dirt, grease, oil, and coatings from an aerospace vehicle or component by physically rubbing it with a material such as a rag, paper, or cotton swab that has been moistened with a cleaning solvent.” (60 FR 45958) The NESHAP rule differentiates between hand-wipe cleaning operations, spray gun cleaning, and “flush cleaning,” in which contaminants are removed by “passing solvent over, into, or through the item being cleaned.” (60 FR 45958) Similarly, EPA is considering differentiating between manual cleaning and other methods for solvent cleaning under the SNAP program.

As part of EPA's efforts to comply with the intent of the mandate in Section 612 of the Clean Air Act to evaluate the overall health and environmental risks associated with potential substitutes to ozone depleting substances, we are interested in receiving comments and information on the following:

• Appropriateness of SNAP review of ODS substitutes used in manual cleaning,

• Potential health and environmental benefits from SNAP review of solvents used in manual cleaning,

• Other solvent applications not currently reviewed under SNAP, but where SNAP review of solvents used in these applications may result in environmental benefits, and

• Consequences of the expansion of SNAP review into manual cleaning. For example, since HCFC-141b is already listed as unacceptable in all non-aerosol solvent cleaning applications (i.e., in precision, electronics, and metals cleaning), the use of HCFC-141b as a substitute for CFC-113 or methyl chloroform in manual wiping would automatically become prohibited if EPA were to promulgate a final rule expanding the scope of SNAP to include manual cleaning. In addition, when EPA promulgates rules in the future that list acceptability determinations for particular solvents, we could prohibit the use of those solvents in manual cleaning.

The Agency hopes that today's action will give the public an opportunity to provide input at an early stage in this decision-making process. If EPA pursues this expansion of the scope of SNAP review, we will do so through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

As discussed in the previous section of this action, EPA has historically applied SNAP review in the non-aerosol solvent cleaning sector only to large industrial cleaning applications where ozone-depleting substances have been historically used. Within industrial cleaning, the three main applications that in the past used ozone-depleting solvents are precision cleaning, electronics cleaning, or general metals cleaning. Solvents used in these applications are subject to SNAP review.

Each of these applications includes a wide range of cleaning operations and equipment: cold cleaning methods such as pail-and-brush, hand wipe, recirculating over-spray (“sink-on-a-drum”) parts washers, immersion cleaning into dip tanks with manual parts handling, automated immersion cleaning using multiple dip tanks, and either automated or manual immersion cleaning that incorporates ultrasonic or mechanical agitation, and heated cleaning methods such as heated dip tanks and vapor degreasing. Some of these operations are more emissive, and present more risks to workers handling the equipment, than others. The Agency is interested in pursuing regulatory options within the SNAP decisionary framework in order to better account for these differences. In other words, for certain solvents reviewed under the SNAP program, it may not make sense to determine that use of that compound is acceptable without conditions or restrictions, or alternatively that it is unacceptable, in all precision (or electronic, or metals) cleaning operations. EPA is interested in pursuing the use of certain narrowed use restrictions on SNAP acceptability decisions that would better implement the intent of the Clean Air Act Section 612 mandate to evaluate the overall health and environmental risks associated with potential substitutes to ozone-depleting substances.

EPA is specifically interested in receiving comments and information on the appropriateness of restricting SNAP acceptability decisions for newly submitted non-aerosol solvents to operations that involve the use of equipment that meets the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 63.462, Batch cold cleaning machine standards, and 40 CFR 63.463, Batch vapor and in-line cleaning machine standards, which are set forth in the national emission standards for halogenated solvent cleaning (“HSC NESHAP”). 4 Does it make sense to add a narrowed use restriction to SNAP “acceptable” or “acceptable subject to use conditions” determinations that would permit the use of the solvent in the appropriate application (i.e., precision cleaning, electronics cleaning, or metals cleaning) only if the solvent is used in conjunction with equipment that meets the HSC NESHAP? This restriction might be stated as follows: “May only be used in conjunction with batch cold cleaning machines or batch vapor or in-line cleaning machines that conform to 40 CFR 63.462 or 40 CFR 63.463.” If an acceptability decision were restricted in this manner, and if EPA were to regulate manual cleaning as discussed in the previous section of the preamble, then the solvent presumably could not be used in (a) manual cleaning in that application, (b) any other cleaning process in that application not subject to the HSC NESHAP, or (c) any cleaning process in that application subject to the HSC NESHAP but not in conformance with the NESHAP.

Another alternative would be to restrict a solvent's use to some subset of the applications mentioned above. For example, there could be conditions prohibiting the solvent's use for any cleaning machines in that application not subject to the HSC NESHAP, or for any cleaning process in that application subject to the HSC NESHAP but not in conformance with the NESHAP. This alternative restriction might be stated as follows: “If used in cleaning machines, may only be used in conjunction with batch cold cleaning machines or batch vapor or in-line cleaning machines that conform to 40 CFR 63.462 or 40 CFR 63.463.” Or, the restriction could apply to cleaning processes that are subject to the HSC NESHAP and to manual cleaning applications. Under this second alternative, the narrowed use restriction might be stated as follows: “If used in conjunction with batch cold cleaning machines or batch vapor or in-line cleaning machines that are subject to 40 CFR 63.462 or 40 CFR 63.463, may only be used in conjunction with equipment that meets the requirements set forth in these provisions. Also may not be used in manual cleaning operations.”

EPA is also interested in receiving comments and information on the following:

• What are the potential health and environmental benefits from the SNAP program adding these types of restrictions to future SNAP acceptability determinations?

• Which solvents submitted to the SNAP program in the future, if any, should be subject to the HSC NESHAP restriction? For example, should this restriction be attached to acceptability determinations for any compound for which the eight-hour time-weighted average exposure limit, whether set by the chemical manufacturer, a voluntary industry organization, or a federal or state health or safety agency, is 100 ppm or less? 150 ppm or less? 50 ppm or less?

• Should any solvents that EPA has already listed as “acceptable” be subject to this type of restriction, in order to prevent worker exposures or atmospheric emissions?

The Agency hopes that today's action will give the public an opportunity to provide input at an early stage in this decision-making process. If EPA pursues this expansion of the scope of SNAP review, we will do so through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

EPA is in the process of reviewing n-propyl bromide (nPB) as a potential substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform and HCFC-141b in the non-aerosol solvent cleaning sector for general metals, precision, and electronics cleaning applications, as well as in adhesive and coatings applications, and aerosol propellant and solvent applications. On February 18, 1999, EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register at 64 FR 8043, which requested comment and information on nPB, particularly with regard to its ozone-depletion potential (ODP) and its toxicity, in order to assist in the development of effective regulatory options.

Through the publication of the ANPRM, EPA summarized and made publicly available the information it had received on nPB so that interested parties could evaluate these data. The ANPRM noted that EPA will supplement the public docket as new information is received, and issue an additional notice of data availability. Today's action serves to provide the public with an update on the information EPA has received to date (which has been added to the public docket), and provides a summary of anticipated next steps in developing regulations under SNAP for nPB.

The discussion below presents this new information for each of the main areas previously identified in the February 1999 ANPRM where significant uncertainties existed or data were incomplete.

Ozone Depletion Potential. Since the publication of the ANPRM, EPA has received new information about ongoing modeling efforts to estimate nPB's ODP. These new efforts involve development and refinement of three-dimensional (3-D) chemical transport models that account for the relatively short-atmospheric lifetime of nPB (11-14 days according to Nelson et al. 1997; Wuebbles et al., 1998; 1999a, and 19-20 days according to Wuebbles et al., 2000) and for the location and timing of emissions. While two-dimensional models can treat longer-lived gases (e.g., CFCs, halons) that are well-mixed in the atmosphere as if they are uniformly emitted at all latitudes and longitudes, they are not designed to adequately account for variations in concentrations and transport of short-lived compounds and their degradation products. As discussed in a March 1999 workshop on short-lived compounds sponsored by EPA and NASA (Wuebbles and Ko, 1999), the ODPs for short-lived compounds ideally would be defined as a function of location and perhaps time of emission. 3-D models can examine questions related to convective transport rates of these short-lived compounds and their degradation products at different latitudes, and the relative importance of transient versus steady-state effects. Using the most recent version of the MOZART2 3-D model and considering the full degradation chemistry of nPB in the atmosphere, Wuebbles et al. 2000 (available from the EPA Air Docket) derived a range of ODP values that are strongly dependent on location of the emissions, especially with respect to latitude. For example, the ODP averaged for all global emissions is estimated to range from 0.033 to 0.040, but the ODP for emissions from the tropics (India, Southeast Asia, and Indonesia) is estimated to be much larger, 0.87 to 0.105. The authors attribute the difference to the strong effect of the deep convective transport in the tropics in rapidly moving gases to the upper troposphere. Assuming that emissions occur only over the contiguous United States, the ODP is estimated to range from 0.016 to 0.019. While many of the previously identified uncertainties with respect to the potential impacts of nPB on stratospheric ozone are addressed in this study, the authors note that considerable uncertainties remain related to the lack of empirical data on reaction rate constants and products for the degradation chemistry associated with nPB. Additional uncertainties also remain that are common to any 3-D modeling of short-lived gases related to the treatment of convective processes, boundary layer processes, surface deposition, and rainout.

The Agency remains interested in receiving from the public any other information pertaining to the atmospheric effects and ozone depletion potential of short-lived atmospheric chemicals (e.g., shorter than three months), and any additional information on the ODP of nPB, specifically. EPA will make any new information accessible to the public as it becomes available by placing it in the docket identified in the Addresses section of this document, and if appropriate, will issue a notice of data availability in the Federal Register to insure that the public is aware of any new information.

Toxicity. As with other solvents, occupational exposure to nPB may occur via both inhalation and skin absorption. Potential health effects related to overexposure to nPB (and many other solvents) may include irritation of the eyes, mucous membranes, upper respiratory tract, and skin. At higher exposure levels, central nervous system effects (characterized by headache and dizziness, possibly leading to loss of consciousness) may occur. Animal studies indicate that exposure to nPB at concentrations above 400 parts per million for “sub-chronic” durations of 28-90 days is associated with liver toxicity and reproductive system effects (reduced sperm counts and motility). Reproductive system effects have also been observed in both rats and humans exposed to 2-bromopropane (iPB), an isomer of nPB which also has tested positive in some in vitro cancer assays.

As discussed in the February 1999 ANPRM, the reproductive and developmental effects of nPB are especially uncertain, and require additional data before the Agency issues a proposed regulation. In cooperation with EPA, a consortium of nPB manufacturers conducted a study to evaluate the effects of nPB exposures on the developmental and reproductive systems in two generations of rats. This study was recently completed, and we expect that its results will be available for Agency review early in 2001.

EPA is also aware of recent Japanese studies that have shown adverse neurotoxicological and reproductive toxicological effects in rats exposed to nPB levels as low as 200 ppm, which is a lower level for adverse effects than has been previously demonstrated (Ichihara et al., 2000a, b). The Agency intends to review the protocols followed in these studies in order to estimate the significance of the findings.

EPA plans on issuing a proposed nPB regulation as soon as possible once we have had an opportunity to evaluate the results of these recent toxicological studies. In the event that EPA lists uses of nPB in certain applications as acceptable, we expect that the final action will include a recommended exposure limit. In the February 1999 ANPRM, EPA recommended that until exposure levels are set, either on a voluntary basis by a standard-setting organization such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) or the American Industrial Hygienists Association (AIHA), or on a mandatory basis by OSHA, nPB users should adhere to a preliminary exposure limit of 50-100 ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average. The nPB manufacturers' current company-set limit at that time was 100 ppm. However, based on the preliminary review of the two-year study discussed above, one manufacturer of nPB has revised its recommended exposure limit to 25 ppm on an 8-hour, time-weighted average basis (see docket A-91-42, item IX-B-61). As indicated by at least one manufacturer's decision and as noted in the February 1999 ANPRM, the results from developmental and reproductive testing may require a lower limit than EPA's preliminary recommendation of 50-100 ppm to be protective.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has submitted nPB and iPB to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' National Toxicology Program (NTP) for further assessment. In its submission, OSHA recommended that NTP consider administering the following tests: Carcinogenicity study in both sexes of rats and mice; a multi-generation reproductive study; developmental studies (inhalation by pregnant animals); a subchronic neuro-toxicity study; a genotoxicity battery; and toxicokinetic/mechanistic studies. These studies would likely take several years to complete. EPA anticipates that once the assessment is finalized, OSHA will work to develop a mandatory exposure limit for nPB use in the workplace. The results of OSHA's review could result in a limit that is lower than EPA's preliminary recommendation of 50-100 ppm.

EPA is presenting and making publicly available the information it has received so that interested parties may evaluate these data for themselves and use it as guidance if they choose to use nPB until a proposal and final rule are in place. EPA remains interested in receiving additional information on human health and toxicological risks associated with exposure to nPB. As EPA receives new information, we will add it to the docket, along with a notice of data availability in the Federal Register , as appropriate.

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

• Rulemaking —Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available.

• Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes —Section 612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.

• Petition Process —Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to or delete a substance from the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.

• 90-day Notification —Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.

• Outreach —Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications.

• Clearinghouse —Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors compose the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ozone-depleting compounds.

As described in this original rule for the SNAP program, EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a substance. Consequently, by this action EPA is adding substances to the list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new listings.

EPA does, however, believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any substance on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substance as acceptable only under certain conditions, to list substances as acceptable only for certain uses, or to remove a substance from the lists of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. Updates to these lists are published as separate notices of rulemaking in the Federal Register .

The Agency defines a “substitute” as any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for a class I or class II substance. Anyone who produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This requirement applies to substitute manufacturers, but may include importers, formulators, or end-users, when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce.

You can find a complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations at EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/chron.html. This information is also available from the Air Docket (see Addresses section above for contact information).

Contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800) 296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST). For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the original SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as well as all EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are available from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/ and from the Stratospheric Protection Hotline, the toll-free telephone number of which is listed above.

The following referenced documents are available for inspection and copying at the EPA Docket.

Ichihara, G., et al., “1-Bromopropane, an Alternative to Ozone Layer Depleting Solvents, Is Dose-Dependently Neurotoxic to Rats in Long-Term Inhalation Exposure,” Toxicological Sciences 55, 116-123 (2000a), available through the EPA Air Docket and at http://toxsci.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/55/1/116.

Ichihara, G., et al., “Reproductive Toxicity of 1-Bromopropane, a Newly Introduced Alternative to Ozone Layer Depleting Solvents, in Male Rats,” Toxicological Sciences 54, 416-423 (2000b), available through the EPA Air Docket and at http://toxsci.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/416).

Wuebbles, D.J., Patten, K.O., Johnson, M.T., Kotomarthi, R.; The New Methodology for Ozone Depletion Potentials of Short-Lived Compounds: n-Propyl Bromide as an Example June 26, 2000 Draft.

Web site for Albemarle Corporation, “Regulatory Status” and “Product Data” for Abzol cleaners, available through the EPA Air Docket and at http://www.albemarle.com/abztopicsfrm.htm.

1. It has come to our attention that our rule on regulatory fee waivers does not conform to the text and intent of our order addressing requests for reductions of fees. On our own motion therefore, we amend and correct our rule on fee waivers. Specifically, in our order adopting rules on regulatory fee waivers, we concluded that the required fee must be submitted with any request for waiver or reduction of regulatory fees. Implementation of Section 9 of the Communications Act. 9 FCC Rcd 5333, 5344 through 5345 (1994) (hereinafter Order ). We excepted only the rare petitions requesting waiver or reduction based on financial hardship and which present compelling cases of financial hardship. We specifically rejected comments arguing that we should not generally require that fees be paid when requests for waiver or reduction of regulatory fees are filed. The language of the rule adopted in the Order, however, inadvertently included the phrase “less the amount of the requested reduction,” following “the full fee payment,” and did not include language regarding dismissing petitions not accompanied by full fee payment. (The rule was originally designated as 47 CFR 1.1165(a)(4), but has since been redesignated 47 CFR 1.1166(d).) Our correction to the rule deletes the phrase “less the amount of the requested reduction” and adds the final sentence to conform the language of the rule to the text and intent of paragraphs 33 to 35 of the Order. We therefore revise paragraph (d) of 47 CFR 1.1166 accordingly.

2. In the interests of fairness, we will ensure that no party that relied on the unamended language of 47 CFR 1.1166(d) will be prejudiced. The amended rule will apply only to petitions filed after the effective date of the amended rule.

3. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) & (j), 159, & 303(r), part 1 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 1, is amended as set forth and is effective January 17, 2001.

This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order (Fifth MO&O) in CC Docket No. 94-102; FCC 00-405, adopted November 9, 2000, and released November 22, 2000. The complete text of this Fifth MO&O is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services (ITS, Inc.), CY-B400, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC.

1. In this Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order (Fifth MO&O), the Commission denies two petitions for reconsideration of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (see Second MO&O, 64 FR 72951, December 29, 1999) in this proceeding, in which the Commission modified its Enhanced 911 (E911) to eliminate the prerequisite that carrier cost recovery mechanisms be in place before the wireless carrier's obligation to provide E911 service is triggered. In January 2000, Rural Cellular Association (RCA) and CorrComm, L.L.C. filed petitions for reconsideration of that decision. In April 2000, RCA filed a peittion for stay of the implementation of the amended cost recovery rule, which became effective on April 27, 2000. Inasmuch as the Commission now denies the petitions for reconsideration of the Second MO&O, the petition for stay is denied as moot.

2. In denying the petitions for reconsideration the Commission affirms that: (1) Adequate notice and opportunity for comment was provided, (2) a complete record supports our conclusion that the rule resulted in a significant impediment to Phase I implementation that was inconsistent with our rules and the statute, and (3) we fully considered the impact of removing the carrier cost recovery requirement on all carriers, including rural carriers.

3. The Commission has not prepared an additional Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible economic impact on small entities of the Commission's decisions. See generally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 604, because this Fifth MO&O does not promulgate or revise any rules, and the previous FRA analyses in this proceeding remain unchanged.

4. This action is taken pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201, 303, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 303, 309, and 332.

5. The Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Corr Wireless Communications, L.L.C. (formerly CorrComm, L.L.C.) and Rural Cellular Association are denied. The Petition for Stay filed by Rural Cellular Association is denied as moot.

This is a summary of the Commission's Thirteenth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45 released on December 8, 2000. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554.

1. In this Thirteenth Report and Order, we adopt the recommendations of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) for phasing down the interim hold-harmless provision of the forward-looking high-cost universal service support mechanism for non-rural carriers. Specifically, we adopt measures to phase down interim hold-harmless support, excluding Long-Term Support (LTS), through $1.00 reductions in average monthly, per-line support beginning January 1, 2001, and every year thereafter until there is no more interim hold-harmless support. For the reasons discussed, we believe that these measures will ensure a prompt, equitable phase-down of interim hold-harmless support without causing undue rate disruption. We conclude that several issues, such as appropriate reforms for the LTS program, should be addressed in the context of our pending proceedings for rural high-cost reform and/or interstate access charge reform for rate-of-return carriers.

2. We adopt the Joint Board's recommendation regarding LTS. The forward-looking mechanism adopted in the Ninth Report and Order, 64 FR 67416, December 1, 1999, does not replace LTS for non-rural carriers, contrary to the Commission's originally anticipated outcome. Therefore, we agree with the Joint Board that LTS for non-rural carriers should be preserved until we have considered further reform of the LTS program. In addition, maintaining LTS for non-rural carriers is consistent with our objective to maintain the current support structure, as modified, for rural LTS recipients pending rural high-cost reform. Because LTS is geared primarily to the needs of small, rural carriers, we find that this determination should take place in the context of our related proceedings to reform the high-cost support mechanism for rural carriers and the interstate access charge system for rate-of-return carriers. We will examine these matters in the near future.

3. We adopt the Joint Board's recommendation that interim hold-harmless support, excluding LTS, be phased down beginning January 1, 2001, through annual $1.00 reductions in each carrier's average monthly, per-line support until this support is eliminated. This approach will promptly phase out interim hold-harmless support for the majority of carriers currently receiving less than $1.00 per-line/per-month, without reducing any carrier's average monthly, per-line support by more than $1.00 per year. Thus, there will be no significant, sudden reductions in per-line support to an individual study area. We agree with the Joint Board that this approach is a reasonable means of ensuring a prompt, equitable phase-down of interim hold-harmless support without causing undue rate disruption, consistent with the objectives we announced in the Ninth Report and Order.

4. We also agree with the Joint Board that the phase-down schedule should be reexamined in conjunction with our review of the forward-looking mechanism, which is to be completed by January 1, 2003. At that time, Puerto Rico Telephone Company is likely to be the only carrier still receiving interim hold-harmless support, and more information will be available on the impact of the phase-down in Puerto Rico.

5. To ensure that the phase-down conforms with the quarterly schedule on which interim hold-harmless support is calculated, the Joint Board recommended that the applicable annual reductions be subtracted from the interim hold-harmless support that a carrier otherwise would be eligible to receive on an ongoing, quarterly basis. We adopt this recommendation.

6. We also conclude that the targeting provisions of the Ninth Report and Order should govern the distribution of phased-down support. Although non-rural carriers receive interim hold-harmless support based on embedded costs averaged over their entire study areas, the support is targeted for competitive purposes to their highest-cost exchanges based on forward-looking economic costs. The Joint Board did not address the issue of whether phased-down support should be targeted to individual exchanges, except in connection with transferred exchanges. We find, however, that targeting phased-down interim hold-harmless support to a carrier's highest-cost exchanges is consistent both with the Joint Board's recommendations and with the Ninth Report and Order.

7. We adopt the Joint Board's recommendation that the “interim cap” on high-cost loop support for rural carriers be calculated as if phased-down interim hold-harmless support were being distributed to non-rural carriers, pending reform of the high-cost support mechanism for rural carriers. Under the current rules, universal service support for all carriers under Part 36 is restricted by a cap that limits the total increase in support each year to the annual growth in nationwide loops. To avoid smaller annual increases in the support available to rural carriers as a result of the shift to forward-looking support for non-rural carriers, we directed in the Ninth Report and Order that the cap be calculated as if all carriers continue to participate in the preexisting Part 36 high-cost support mechanism. Subtracting phased-down support amounts from calculation of the cap likewise could result in smaller annual cap increases, because the prior year support level used to calculate the cap includes the high-cost loop support for non-rural carriers under Part 36 that will be phased down as a result of the approach we adopt herein. Accordingly, we agree with the Joint Board that an interim “placeholder” measure is warranted to avoid significant and immediate changes in high-cost support for rural carriers as a result of the phase-down. In accordance with the Joint Board's recommendations, we also conclude that phased-down support for non-rural carriers (support calculated as a “placeholder”) should not be collected or distributed to other carriers. We note that we expect this placeholder to remain in effect for a limited time, as we are committed to moving forward expeditiously on high-cost reform for rural carriers.

8. We are mindful of the Joint Board's concerns regarding the operation of § 54.305 of the Commission's rules. As the Joint Board recognized, however, the rule serves the important purpose of preventing carriers receiving support based on the size of their study areas and embedded costs from “placing unreasonable reliance upon potential universal service support in deciding whether to purchase exchanges[.]” Section 54.305 was adopted as a temporary measure to be utilized during our transition to universal service support mechanisms that provide support to all carriers based on the forward-looking economic costs of operating a given exchange. The Joint Board is currently considering reform of the rural high-cost support mechanism, including the operation of § 54.305 for rural carriers. We believe that the rural high-cost reform proceeding is the most appropriate context in which to reexamine the operation of § 54.305 with regard to transfers involving rural carriers.

9. We therefore adopt the Joint Board's recommendation not to phase down interim hold-harmless support for eligible exchanges transferred to rural carriers until we reexamine § 54.305 or until rural high-cost reform is complete.

10. We also adopt the Joint Board's recommendation that interim hold-harmless support for exchanges transferred to non-rural carriers be phased down over the same time period as the seller's support would have been phased down. We agree with the Joint Board that this approach will ensure a prompt and equitable phase-down of transferred interim hold-harmless support, and discourage carriers from transferring exchanges to delay or avoid the phase-down of interim hold- harmless support. In addition, we adopt the recommendation that targeted support for exchanges transferred to non-rural carriers be phased down by an equal percentage for each year of the phase-down period, on an exchange-by-exchange basis. This approach will be administratively simple and predictable for acquiring non-rural carriers.

11. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of proposed policies and rules, and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) whenever an agency subsequently promulgates a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the proposed or final rule will not have “a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and includes the factual basis for such certification. The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA defines a small telecommunications entity in Standard Industrial Classification Code 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) as an entity with 1,500 or fewer employees.

12. We conclude that a FRFA is not required here. The foregoing Thirteenth Report and Order adopts a final rule. The rules adopted affect the amount of high-cost support provided to non-rural carriers. Non-rural carriers generally do not fall within the SBA's definition of a small business concern because they are usually large corporations or affiliates of such corporations. Thus, the final rules adopted here do not affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we certify, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, that the final rule adopted in the Thirteenth Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Thirteenth Report and Order and of this certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, this certification will be published in the Federal Register . The Commission will send a copy of this Thirteenth Report and Order, including a copy of this certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA.

13. We conclude that the amendments to our rules adopted herein shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register . In this Thirteenth Report and Order we conclude that the phase-down of interim hold-harmless support, excluding LTS, will be implemented beginning January 1, 2001. Thus, the amendments must become effective by January 1, 2001. Making the amendments effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register would jeopardize the required January 1, 2001 implementation date. This implementation date is important because January 1, 2001 is the beginning of a new funding year, and interim hold-harmless support is a transitional funding mechanism that increases the size of the federal high-cost fund and should be phased down as rapidly as possible without causing undue disruption to consumer rates in high-cost areas. Accordingly, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, we find good cause to depart from the general requirement that final rules take effect not less than 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register .

14. The instant Report and Order contains no information collections.

21. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 201-205, 214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, this Thirteenth Report and Order is adopted.

22. Part 36 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth, effective December 18, 2000.

23. Part 54 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth, effective December 18, 2000.

24. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Thirteenth Report and Order, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act Certifications, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 36 and 54 as follows:

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned on a percentage basis among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.100.

The initial total commercial quota for summer flounder for the 2000 calendar year was set equal to 11,109,214 lb (5,039,055 kg)(65 FR 33486, May 24, 2000). The percent allocated to vessels landing summer flounder in North Carolina is 27.44584 percent, or 3,049,560 lb (1,383,257 kg).

Section 648.101(b) requires the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) to monitor state commercial quotas and to determine when a state’s commercial quota is harvested. The Regional Administrator is further required to publish a notification in the Federal Register advising a state and notifying Federal vessel and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the state’s commercial quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for landing summer flounder in that state. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the State of North Carolina has attained its quota for 2000.

The regulations at § 648.4(b) provide that Federal permit holders agree as a condition of the permit not to land summer flounder in any state that the Regional Administrator has determined no longer has commercial quota available. Therefore, effective 0001 hours, December 17, 2000, further landings of summer flounder in North Carolina by vessels holding summer flounder commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited for the remainder of the 2000 calendar year, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer and is announced in the Federal Register . Effective 0001 hours, December 17, 2000, federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase summer flounder from federally permitted vessels that land in North Carolina for the remainder of the calendar year, or until additional quota becomes available through a transfer.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.